On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 at 13:54, Johan Hovold <johan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 11:18:07AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 27/03/2023 14:29, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > > The pmk8280 PMIC PON peripheral is gen3 and uses two sets of registers;
> > > hlos and pbs.
> > >
> > > This specifically fixes the following error message during boot when the
> > > pbs registers are not defined:
> > >
> > > PON_PBS address missing, can't read HW debounce time
> > >
> > > Note that this also enables the spurious interrupt workaround introduced
> > > by commit 0b65118e6ba3 ("Input: pm8941-pwrkey - add software key press
> > > debouncing support") (which may or may not be needed).
> > >
> > > Fixes: ccd3517faf18 ("arm64: dts: qcom: sc8280xp: Add reference device")
> > > Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp-pmics.dtsi | 5 +++--
> > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp-pmics.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp-pmics.dtsi
> > > index c35e7f6bd657..a0ba535bb6c9 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp-pmics.dtsi
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp-pmics.dtsi
> > > @@ -59,8 +59,9 @@ pmk8280: pmic@0 {
> > > #size-cells = <0>;
> > >
> > > pmk8280_pon: pon@1300 {
> > > - compatible = "qcom,pm8998-pon";
> > > - reg = <0x1300>;
> > > + compatible = "qcom,pmk8350-pon";
> >
> > Same comment as Dmitry's. There is no compatible "qcom,pmk8350-pon"
> > ccd3517faf18, therefore indicated backport (through AUTOSEL) will lead
> > to invalid stable kernel.
> >
> > You must drop the Fixes tag, because this cannot be backported.
>
> That's bullshit. Do you see a stable tag? Is 5.19-stable still active?
I'd tend to agree with Johan here. Neither of us has added the Cc:stable tags
Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> The problem is that the driver was updated before the binding was so the
> above mentioned probe error has been there since this file was merged.
>
> AUTOSEL is crazy and people apparently just ignore it instead of NAKing
> when it is suggesting backporting devicetree cleanups (which to be fair
> should generally not have Fixes tags in the first place).
>
> If 5.19-stable was still active and someone suggested backporting this
> one, they would have to change the compatible string to match the
> inconsistent 5.19 kernel. Note that that would need to happen regardless
> of whether this patch has a Fixes tag or not.
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
