| Message ID | 20170209133803.21539-1-chris.brandt@renesas.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | 3932197c01e4ca7d743d07728656d938f1ae93d5 |
| Delegated to: | Simon Horman |
| Headers | show |
(this time reply-to-all) On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Chris Brandt <chris.brandt@renesas.com> wrote: > Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be> > Signed-off-by: Chris Brandt <chris.brandt@renesas.com> > Fixes: 66474697923c ("ARM: dts: r7s72100: add sdhi to device tree") Acked-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be> Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 02:25:04PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > (this time reply-to-all) > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Chris Brandt <chris.brandt@renesas.com> wrote: > > Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be> > > Signed-off-by: Chris Brandt <chris.brandt@renesas.com> > > Fixes: 66474697923c ("ARM: dts: r7s72100: add sdhi to device tree") > > Acked-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be> Thanks, I have queued this up for v4.12. The fixes tag above indicates this is a fix for v4.10, however, when I tried to apply it on top of v4.11-rc1 there was a conflict. So I think a backport will be required if we want it to be considered for v4.11 and be considered for and in turn v4.10-stable. This makes things a bit messy with regards to conflicts between v4.11 and v4.12 and I'm inclined to pass on the backport.
Hi Simon, On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 02:25:04PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> (this time reply-to-all) >> >> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Chris Brandt <chris.brandt@renesas.com> wrote: >> > Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be> >> > Signed-off-by: Chris Brandt <chris.brandt@renesas.com> >> > Fixes: 66474697923c ("ARM: dts: r7s72100: add sdhi to device tree") >> >> Acked-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be> > > Thanks, I have queued this up for v4.12. > > The fixes tag above indicates this is a fix for v4.10, however, when I > tried to apply it on top of v4.11-rc1 there was a conflict. So I think a > backport will be required if we want it to be considered for v4.11 and be > considered for and in turn v4.10-stable. That's because of commit 3d2abda02ad2d06d ("ARM: dts: r7s72100: update sdhi clock bindings") > This makes things a bit messy with regards to conflicts between v4.11 and > v4.12 and I'm inclined to pass on the backport. If you ever want to backport, you'll have two backport changes too the SDHI driver, too. Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 08:55:44AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Simon, > > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 02:25:04PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >> (this time reply-to-all) > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Chris Brandt <chris.brandt@renesas.com> wrote: > >> > Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be> > >> > Signed-off-by: Chris Brandt <chris.brandt@renesas.com> > >> > Fixes: 66474697923c ("ARM: dts: r7s72100: add sdhi to device tree") > >> > >> Acked-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be> > > > > Thanks, I have queued this up for v4.12. > > > > The fixes tag above indicates this is a fix for v4.10, however, when I > > tried to apply it on top of v4.11-rc1 there was a conflict. So I think a > > backport will be required if we want it to be considered for v4.11 and be > > considered for and in turn v4.10-stable. > > That's because of commit 3d2abda02ad2d06d > ("ARM: dts: r7s72100: update sdhi clock bindings") > > > This makes things a bit messy with regards to conflicts between v4.11 and > > v4.12 and I'm inclined to pass on the backport. > > If you ever want to backport, you'll have two backport changes too the > SDHI driver, too. Is that the case if only this patch (and not 3d2abda02ad2d06d) is backported?
Hi Simon, On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 08:55:44AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> wrote: >> > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 02:25:04PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> >> (this time reply-to-all) >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Chris Brandt <chris.brandt@renesas.com> wrote: >> >> > Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be> >> >> > Signed-off-by: Chris Brandt <chris.brandt@renesas.com> >> >> > Fixes: 66474697923c ("ARM: dts: r7s72100: add sdhi to device tree") >> >> >> >> Acked-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be> >> > >> > Thanks, I have queued this up for v4.12. >> > >> > The fixes tag above indicates this is a fix for v4.10, however, when I >> > tried to apply it on top of v4.11-rc1 there was a conflict. So I think a >> > backport will be required if we want it to be considered for v4.11 and be >> > considered for and in turn v4.10-stable. >> >> That's because of commit 3d2abda02ad2d06d >> ("ARM: dts: r7s72100: update sdhi clock bindings") >> >> > This makes things a bit messy with regards to conflicts between v4.11 and >> > v4.12 and I'm inclined to pass on the backport. >> >> If you ever want to backport, you'll have two backport changes too the >> SDHI driver, too. > > Is that the case if only this patch (and not 3d2abda02ad2d06d) is backported? No, but if you backport this patch only, you'll have to handle the conflicts... Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
On Friday, March 24, 2017, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > The fixes tag above indicates this is a fix for v4.10, however, when I > > tried to apply it on top of v4.11-rc1 there was a conflict. So I > > think a backport will be required if we want it to be considered for > > v4.11 and be considered for and in turn v4.10-stable. > > That's because of commit 3d2abda02ad2d06d > ("ARM: dts: r7s72100: update sdhi clock bindings") Between the two, "update sdhi clock bindings" is more important this this patch ("add power-domains"). Without "update sdhi clock bindings", the SDHI /might/ not work. But, "update sdhi clock bindings", also relies on the driver update 34a1654706c6 ("mmc: sh_mobile_sdhi: add support for 2 clocks"). That one is in v4.11-rc1, but not in 4.10.5. I just noticed now that 34a1654706c6 does not have "Fixes" in the commit log, so it is probably not marked to go into v4.10-stable, so in that case backporting the dtsi is pointless. Chris
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 11:17:25AM +0000, Chris Brandt wrote: > On Friday, March 24, 2017, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > The fixes tag above indicates this is a fix for v4.10, however, when I > > > tried to apply it on top of v4.11-rc1 there was a conflict. So I > > > think a backport will be required if we want it to be considered for > > > v4.11 and be considered for and in turn v4.10-stable. > > > > That's because of commit 3d2abda02ad2d06d > > ("ARM: dts: r7s72100: update sdhi clock bindings") > > > Between the two, "update sdhi clock bindings" is more important this this patch ("add power-domains"). > Without "update sdhi clock bindings", the SDHI /might/ not work. > > > But, "update sdhi clock bindings", also relies on the driver update 34a1654706c6 ("mmc: sh_mobile_sdhi: add support for 2 clocks"). > That one is in v4.11-rc1, but not in 4.10.5. > > I just noticed now that 34a1654706c6 does not have "Fixes" in the commit log, so it is probably not marked to go into v4.10-stable, so in that case backporting the dtsi is pointless. We could try to coordinate getting 34a1654706c6 and the dtsi changes into v4.10-stable if you it is sufficiently important. What are your thoughts on that?
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/r7s72100.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/r7s72100.dtsi index 614ba79..0b9677f 100644 --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/r7s72100.dtsi +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/r7s72100.dtsi @@ -494,6 +494,7 @@ clocks = <&mstp12_clks R7S72100_CLK_SDHI00>, <&mstp12_clks R7S72100_CLK_SDHI01>; clock-names = "core", "cd"; + power-domains = <&cpg_clocks>; cap-sd-highspeed; cap-sdio-irq; status = "disabled"; @@ -509,6 +510,7 @@ clocks = <&mstp12_clks R7S72100_CLK_SDHI10>, <&mstp12_clks R7S72100_CLK_SDHI11>; clock-names = "core", "cd"; + power-domains = <&cpg_clocks>; cap-sd-highspeed; cap-sdio-irq; status = "disabled";
Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be> Signed-off-by: Chris Brandt <chris.brandt@renesas.com> Fixes: 66474697923c ("ARM: dts: r7s72100: add sdhi to device tree") --- arch/arm/boot/dts/r7s72100.dtsi | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)