linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: dts: rockchip: Move uart5 pin configuration to SoM dtsi

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: <3355298.oiGErgHkdL@diego>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2025 10:38:28 +0100
From: Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>
To: Lukasz Czechowski <lukasz.czechowski@...umatec.com>,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org,
 conor+dt@...nel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@...rry.de>
Subject:
 Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: dts: rockchip: Move uart5 pin configuration to SoM
 dtsi

Am Dienstag, 21. Januar 2025, 10:36:15 CET schrieb Quentin Schulz:
> Hi Lukasz,
> 
> On 1/21/25 10:22 AM, Lukasz Czechowski wrote:
> > In the PX30-uQ7 (Ringneck) SoM, the hardware CTS and RTS pins for
> > uart5 cannot be used for the UART CTS/RTS, because they are already
> > allocated for different purposes. CTS pin is routed to SUS_S3#
> > signal, while RTS pin is used internally and is not available on
> > Q7 connector. Move definition of the pinctrl-0 property from
> > px30-ringneck-haikou.dts to px30-ringneck.dtsi.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Lukasz Czechowski <lukasz.czechowski@...umatec.com>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@...rry.de>
> 
> Considering that I'll request the next patch to be backported to stable 
> releases, we should probably backport this one as well to avoid a git 
> conflict?
> 
> c.f. 
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#select-the-recipients-for-your-patch
> 
> Essentially: Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> 
> @Heiko, this one patch isn't really a genuine candidate for stable 
> backport as it's just moving things around but it'll result in a git 
> conflict when backporting the other patch, how is it usually done for 
> stable releases?

Just Cc-stable and possibly explain it being a dependency in the commit message.

And patch2 should ideally get a Fixes tag