On 30/09/2022 22:19, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 11:22 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> There is no "bias-no-pull" property. Assume intentions were disabling
>> bias.
>>
>> Fixes: b190fb010664 ("arm64: dts: qcom: sdm630: Add sdm630 dts file")
>> Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Not tested on hardware.
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm630.dtsi | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> This does change behavior and has the potential to break someone.
> Thus, without a bug report or someone to give a tested-by I'm at least
> moderately worried about this going to stable@
Indeed. I can drop Cc-stable, but AUTOSEL can still pick it up because
of Fixes tag. Fixes tag is here important to indicate we are having a
bug before.
>
> I would also note that convention on Qualcomm SoCs that I've worked on
> was that bias shouldn't be specified in the SoC dtsi file and should
> be left to board files. This is talked a bit about in a previous email
> thread [1].
Uh, that makes a lot of sense. It is almost always a property of a board.
>
> That being said, it does look like this was the intention of the
> original commit, so thus:
>
> Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks.
I can also drop the property entirely to match existing behavior (not
the intention).
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAD=FV=VUL4GmjaibAMhKNdpEso_Hg_R=XeMaqah1LSj_9-Ce4Q@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
Best regards,
Krzysztof
