[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YrM+wxRWV+RFTfjY@kroah.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2022 18:09:39 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc: Julian Haller <julian.haller@...lips.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.4 1/2] hwmon: Introduce
hwmon_device_register_for_thermal
On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 08:44:54AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 05:39:50PM +0200, Julian Haller wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 04:49:01PM +0200, Julian Haller wrote:
> > > > From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
> > > >
> > > > [ upstream commit e5d21072054fbadf41cd56062a3a14e447e8c22b ]
> > > >
> > > > The thermal subsystem registers a hwmon driver without providing
> > > > chip or sysfs group information. This is for legacy reasons and
> > > > would be difficult to change. At the same time, we want to enforce
> > > > that chip information is provided when registering a hwmon device
> > > > using hwmon_device_register_with_info(). To enable this, introduce
> > > > a special API for use only by the thermal subsystem.
> > > >
> > > > Acked-by: Rafael J . Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
> > >
> > > What is the point of applying those patches to the 5.4 kernel ?
> > > This was intended for use with new code, not for stable releases.
> > >
> > > Guenter
> >
> > The upstream commit ddaefa209c4ac791c1262e97c9b2d0440c8ef1d5 ("hwmon: Make chip
> > parameter for with_info API mandatory") was backported to the 5.4 kernel as
> > part of v5.4.198, see commit 1ec0bc72f5dab3ab367ae5230cf6f212d805a225. This
> > breaks the hwmon device registration in the thermal drivers as these two
> > patches here have been left out. We either need to include them as well or
> > revert the original commit.
> >
> > I'm also not sure why the original commit found its way into the 5.4 stable
> > branch.
> >
>
> I had complained about this backport to other branches before. That patch
> was not a bug fix, it was neither intended nor marked for stable releases,
> and it should be reverted from all stable branches.
Yes, that's not right, let me go revert that. Odd that it only went
into 4.19 and 5.4, I think Sasha's scripts went wonky there...
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists