[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <00ea22f4-8c39-4f82-81f7-e76a87ace559@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 17:11:45 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Stefan Moring <stefan.moring@...hnolution.nl>,
Adam Butcher <adam@...samine.co.uk>,
Benjamin Bigler <benjamin@...ler.one>,
Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>, s.hauer@...gutronix.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Stefan Bigler <linux@...ler.io>,
linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
Thorsten Scherer <T.Scherer@...elmann.de>,
Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@....com>, linux-imx@....com,
kernel@...gutronix.de, Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>,
shawnguo@...nel.org, Carlos Song <carlos.song@....com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: Increase imx51 ecspi burst length based on transfer
length
On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 06:06:02PM +0200, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> On 18.06.2024 17:02:22, Mark Brown wrote:
> > A single revert should be fine and is probably clearer.
> thanks for your quick answer. What about the Fixes-tag? Just the
> original patch?
> Fixes: 15a6af94a277 ("spi: Increase imx51 ecspi burst length based on transfer length")
Either way should be fine there, so long as the original patch is
mentioned. It shouldn't do any harm to mention the others too though.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists