linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: soc: ti: am654-serdes-ctrl: Add simple-mfd to compatible items

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 18:06:16 -0500
From: Andrew Davis <afd@...com>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
CC: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski
	<krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Tony
 Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
        Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>, Vignesh Raghavendra
	<vigneshr@...com>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: soc: ti: am654-serdes-ctrl: Add
 simple-mfd to compatible items

On 6/28/24 4:38 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 05:23:22PM -0500, Andrew Davis wrote:
>> On 6/25/24 2:46 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> On 25.06.24 18:49, Andrew Davis wrote:
>>>> On 6/25/24 11:45 AM, Andrew Davis wrote:
>>>>> This node contains a child which is only probed if simple-mfd is in the
>>>>> compatible list. Add this here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Davis <afd@...com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> This patch depends on https://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg5253666.html
>>>>
>>>
>>> But is that patch already scheduled for 6.10 as well?
>>
>> I don't think so.. But only [patch 2/2] from this series needs applied
>> back to 6.10 to fix the issue. This one [Patch 1/2] just removes a dts warning.
> 
> Both or none should be applied...
> 

Both should be applied to master.

Only [2/2] is a fix that should then be backported to v6.10.x to fix an issue in v6.10.

[1/2] has a dependency on a patch that will not be in v6.10 so it cannot be backported,
but luckily [1/2] is just a fix for a DTB check warning. [2/2] doesn't depend on [1/2].
So no issue there, [2/2] should backport cleanly all by itself.

Andrew