linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] gpio: idio-16: Define fixed direction of the GPIO lines

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]

Message-ID: <aPehGYRf9vCtzOA-@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2025 18:04:57 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc: William Breathitt Gray <wbg@...nel.org>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>,
	Michael Walle <mwalle@...nel.org>,
	Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@....com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Mark Cave-Ayland <mark.caveayland@...anix.com>,
	stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] gpio: idio-16: Define fixed direction of the GPIO
 lines

On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 04:49:05PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 4:41 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 09:21:38AM -0400, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 10:51:46 +0200, William Breathitt Gray
> > > <wbg@...nel.org> said:

...

> > > > Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org # ae495810cffe: gpio: regmap: add the .fixed_direction_output configuration parameter
> >
> > > Turns out, this requires commit ae495810cffe ("gpio: regmap: add the
> > > .fixed_direction_output configuration parameter") so I cannot queue it for
> > > v6.18. What do you want me to do? Send the first two ones upstream and apply
> > > this for v6.19?
> >
> > Why can't this be pulled from some IB/IT as part of the fix?
> 
> These kinds of things should be signalled before applying the patches
> that should go to an immutable branch. I would now have to rebase the
> my for-next branch.

No objections on this one, this is unfortunate.

> Also: the commit in question brings in a new feature, not a fix.

I can argue that this is part of the fix.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko