[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c04c3691-7be3-afc5-4f95-2b06ee402c0d@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 10:48:46 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@....ru>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com>,
Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
MTD Maling List <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-spi <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] memory: renesas-rpc-if: Move resource acquisition to
.probe()
On 29/06/2022 20:48, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>
>> You sure? Except rebasing I don't see that. rpcif_sw_init() received the
>> rpcif so it had access to all fields.
>
> Yes I am, don't be misguided by the name of the local variable.
> The rpcif structure is allocated by the HF or SPI child driver,
> and thus not available in the RPC core driver's .probe() function.
> The rpc_priv structure (as of patch 4) is allocated by the RPC core driver.
>
>>> I agree patches 1-3 could be moved later, if you think it is worthwhile.
>>
>> This would not be enough, it has to be first patch to be backportable.
>
> I can make it second? ;-)
Why? The point is that this commit should have Fixes or Cc-stable tag.
If you make it depending on other non-backportable commit, stable folks
cannot pull it automatically.
> Note that that still precludes (easily) backporting s2ram support.
But S2R is a feature so it won't be backported...
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists