On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 02:52:40PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 02:10:21PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 05:54:16PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 11:25:48AM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote: > > > > > > As I mentioned, the 'required-opps' binding update is needed to > > > > fix the missing OPP vote so blocking the binding patch would > > > > block merging the DT fix which could otherwise go into 6.8. > > > > > I agree that the fix gets the priority. But some maintainers > > > perfer to merge fix patches _only_ if they are fixing the issue > > > introduced in the ongoing release. But if Bjorn has no issues in > > > merging these for 6.8, then it is fine. > > I do prefer to merge only regression and important fixes after the > merge window, so I want to be able to provide justification. > > > It also depends on the severity of the issue and to some extent the > > complexity of the fix. These binding fixes are certainly low risk. > > :) > > IIUC we're talking about: > > arm64: dts: qcom: sc8280xp: add missing PCIe minimum OPP I'd prefer to take this one through my tree. I will double check the hardware documentation (there are differences in sc8280xp here) and decide how to proceed... > dt-bindings: PCI: qcom: Allow 'required-opps' Picking this for v6.9 is fine, no practical badness ensues. We would temporarily have a few additional DeviceTree validation warnings in the v6.8 release... Regards, Bjorn > > These don't look like a regression fix (correct me if I'm wrong), and > I can't tell whether they fix a user-visible problem, since > sc8280xp.dtsi does already contain 'required-opps' for ufs_mem_hc, > usb_0, and usb_1, which are mentioned in the commit log as covering up > the issue. > > If these patches wait until v6.9, what badness ensues? > > Bjorn
