linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 5/8] phy: exynos5-usbdrd: gs101: ensure power is gated to SS phy in phy

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

Message-ID: <Z1W9xuCrn40uPWbr@vaman>
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2024 21:09:50 +0530
From: Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: André Draszik <andre.draszik@...aro.org>,
	Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...nel.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
	Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@...sung.com>,
	Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
	Peter Griffin <peter.griffin@...aro.org>,
	Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org>,
	Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@...aro.org>,
	Will McVicker <willmcvicker@...gle.com>,
	Roy Luo <royluo@...gle.com>, kernel-team@...roid.com,
	linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/8] phy: exynos5-usbdrd: gs101: ensure power is gated
 to SS phy in phy_exit()

On 05-12-24, 09:04, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2024 at 07:33:16AM +0000, André Draszik wrote:
> > We currently don't gate the power to the SS phy in phy_exit().
> > 
> > Shuffle the code slightly to ensure the power is gated to the SS phy as
> > well.
> > 
> > Fixes: 32267c29bc7d ("phy: exynos5-usbdrd: support Exynos USBDRD 3.1 combo phy (HS & SS)")
> > CC: stable@...r.kernel.org # 6.11+
> 
> Why is a patch 5/8 a stable thing?  If this is such an important bugfix,
> it should be sent separately as a 1/1 patch, right?

Correct, one should move fixes to top of the series..

-- 
~Vinod