lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Oct]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/6] Revert "nvmem: add new config option"
On 2023-10-21 22:51, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 21, 2023 at 10:31:55PM +0200, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>> On 2023-10-21 19:18, Greg KH wrote:
>> > On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 11:55:43AM +0100, srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org
>> > wrote:
>> > > From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
>> > >
>> > > This reverts commit 517f14d9cf3533d5ab4fded195ab6f80a92e378f.
>> > >
>> > > It seems that "no_of_node" config option was added to help mtd's case.
>> > >
>> > > DT nodes of MTD partitions (that are also NVMEM devices) may contain
>> > > subnodes that SHOULD NOT be treated as NVMEM fixed cells. To prevent
>> > > NVMEM core code from parsing them "no_of_node" was set to true and
>> > > that
>> > > made for_each_child_of_node() in NVMEM a no-op.
>> > >
>> > > With the introduction of "add_legacy_fixed_of_cells" config option
>> > > things got more explicit. MTD subsystem simply tells NVMEM when to
>> > > look
>> > > for fixed cells and there is no need to hack "of_node" pointer
>> > > anymore.
>> > >
>> > > Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
>> > > Reviewed-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
>> > > Signed-off-by: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>
>> >
>> > Why isn't this also marked for stable trees?
>>
>> I think it's explained in commit message but maybe it's not clear
>> enough?
>
> It's not, I just read it again and can't figure it out, sorry.
>
>> This revert (PATCH 4/6) is possible only with the previous PATCH 2/6
>> applied first. In other words "no_of_node" config option can be
>> dropped
>> only after adding "add_legacy_fixed_of_cells" config option.
>
> Ah, ok, that's not obvious :)
>
>> Since adding "add_legacy_fixed_of_cells" is not a bug/regression fix I
>> didn't mark it for stable and so I couldn't mark revert for stable.
>
> That's fine, but can you please resend this with a better changelog
> that
> makes it obvious why now we can revert the old patch, otherwise the
> autobot will come along and attempt to backport it to stable as well.

Oops, my bad then. I'll resend tomorrow. Thanks for quick answer!

--
Rafał Miłecki

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-10-22 01:24    [W:1.683 / U:0.440 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site