| Message ID | 20171211050704.20621-4-joel@jms.id.au (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au> wrote: > This should have always been 8. > > Signed-off-by: Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au> As this is a bugfix, should we backport it to stable kernels? When you fix a bug, I generally recommend including a 'Fixes' tag with the commit ID of the patch that introduced the problem, and either a 'Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org' tag if you want it backported, or an explanation in the changelog why it should not get backported. This really helps Greg and the other stable maintainers trying to make a decision what to backport and what not. Arnd
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au> wrote: >> This should have always been 8. >> >> Signed-off-by: Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au> > > As this is a bugfix, should we backport it to stable kernels? When you > fix a bug, > I generally recommend including a 'Fixes' tag with the commit ID of the patch > that introduced the problem, and either a 'Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org' tag > if you want it backported, or an explanation in the changelog why it should > not get backported. This really helps Greg and the other stable maintainers > trying to make a decision what to backport and what not. We could do this, and I generally follow the practice of adding Fixes tags. I hadn't because without an upstream clock driver, the Aspeed port is not usable by anyone without making modifications. We're really depending on getting that code merged. I will send it as a fix to 4.15. Do you mind taking individual patches for the arm dt tree, or would you prefer a pull request? Cheers, Joel
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au> wrote: >>> This should have always been 8. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au> >> >> As this is a bugfix, should we backport it to stable kernels? When you >> fix a bug, >> I generally recommend including a 'Fixes' tag with the commit ID of the patch >> that introduced the problem, and either a 'Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org' tag >> if you want it backported, or an explanation in the changelog why it should >> not get backported. This really helps Greg and the other stable maintainers >> trying to make a decision what to backport and what not. > > We could do this, and I generally follow the practice of adding Fixes > tags. I hadn't because without an upstream clock driver, the Aspeed > port is not usable by anyone without making modifications. We're > really depending on getting that code merged. > > I will send it as a fix to 4.15. Do you mind taking individual patches > for the arm dt tree, or would you prefer a pull request? For bugfixes, we don't distinguish between DT and other fixes. If it's a single patch, a pull request works just as well as a emailed patch, your choice. Arnd
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/aspeed-g4.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/aspeed-g4.dtsi index 100d092e6c07..9ebf90f34709 100644 --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/aspeed-g4.dtsi +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/aspeed-g4.dtsi @@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ compatible = "aspeed,ast2400-vuart"; reg = <0x1e787000 0x40>; reg-shift = <2>; - interrupts = <10>; + interrupts = <8>; clocks = <&clk_uart>; no-loopback-test; status = "disabled";
This should have always been 8. Signed-off-by: Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au> --- arch/arm/boot/dts/aspeed-g4.dtsi | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)