lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <76b3269a-1e04-1e93-c06e-ec0f28536cc5@linaro.org> Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2022 11:57:55 +0200 From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> To: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> Cc: Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>, Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>, Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>, Rob Clark <robdclark@...omium.org>, linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>, "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "# 4.0+" <stable@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] arm64: dts: qcom: sdm630: fix UART1 pin bias On 30/09/2022 22:19, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 11:22 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski > <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote: >> >> There is no "bias-no-pull" property. Assume intentions were disabling >> bias. >> >> Fixes: b190fb010664 ("arm64: dts: qcom: sdm630: Add sdm630 dts file") >> Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> >> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> >> >> --- >> >> Not tested on hardware. >> --- >> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm630.dtsi | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > This does change behavior and has the potential to break someone. > Thus, without a bug report or someone to give a tested-by I'm at least > moderately worried about this going to stable@ Indeed. I can drop Cc-stable, but AUTOSEL can still pick it up because of Fixes tag. Fixes tag is here important to indicate we are having a bug before. > > I would also note that convention on Qualcomm SoCs that I've worked on > was that bias shouldn't be specified in the SoC dtsi file and should > be left to board files. This is talked a bit about in a previous email > thread [1]. Uh, that makes a lot of sense. It is almost always a property of a board. > > That being said, it does look like this was the intention of the > original commit, so thus: > > Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> Thanks. I can also drop the property entirely to match existing behavior (not the intention). > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAD=FV=VUL4GmjaibAMhKNdpEso_Hg_R=XeMaqah1LSj_9-Ce4Q@mail.gmail.com/ Best regards, Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists