[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201114191642.GA5272@piout.net>
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2020 20:16:42 +0100
From: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
Cc: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>,
Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@...rochip.com>,
linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9] iio: adc: at91_adc: rework trigger definition
On 14/11/2020 17:02:30+0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 22:26:45 +0100
> Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com> wrote:
>
> > Move the available trigger definition back in the driver to stop cluttering
> > the device tree. There is no functional change except that it actually
> > fixes the available triggers for at91sam9rl as it inherited the list from
> > at91sam9260 but actually has the triggers from at91sam9x5.
>
> Is that a fix we might want to backport? If not we should probably put a clear
> statement in here to avoid it getting picked up by the bot.
>
> I'd argue it's to invasive a change to backport.
>
Nobody ever complained about it so I don't think it is necessary to
backport. Anyway, the proper backportable fix would be to simply change
the device tree, that avoids the driver change which I also think is too
invasive. I'll include the DT change in v2.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists