Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 21 Oct 2023 22:56:02 +0200 | From | Rafał Miłecki <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |