On 06/12/2023 12:38, Varadarajan Narayanan wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 03:01:12PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 28/11/2023 11:14, Varadarajan Narayanan wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 09:51:50AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 28/11/2023 09:46, Varadarajan Narayanan wrote:
>>>>> From: Varadarajan Narayanan <quic_varada@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>
>>>>> The earlier patch ec4f047679d5, incorrectly used 'l2'
>>>>> as the vdda-pll-supply. However, 'l5' is the correct
>>>>> ldo that supplies power to the USB PHY.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixes: ec4f047679d5 ("arm64: dts: qcom: ipq9574: Enable USB")
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't this depend on the driver change?
>>>
>>> Yes, will mention in the cover letter.
>>
>> This commit should have it in its changelog ---
>>
>>>
>>>> It affects both existing
>>>> kernel and backports which you claim here should happen.
>>>
>>> Ok. Will include stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx in the next revision.
>>
>> I wasn't speaking about Cc. You indicated this should be backported.
>> Then please backport it, without previous commit, and check the result.
>> Is stable tree working correctly or not?
>
> Without the previous commit, it would fail in both the latest
> and stable tree. (Please see below for the error messages and
> stack dump)
>
> The previous commit is necessary for this commit to work.
Yep, exactly. It's visible from the patches. I don't know how to solve
this exactly. The Fixes tag here is logically correct, but then any
backporting must include previous commit. Dependency can be provided in
cc-stable tag, but you did not cc-stable, I suppose on purpose.
If this is chosen by AUTOSEL, are you going to check if backport
includes previous patch and object/review such backport?
Best regards,
Krzysztof
