On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 11:37:01AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 9:43 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, May 09, 2021 at 06:22:05PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: > > > > This does not qualify as a regression in that it has never worked for > > > the specific platform that I have shown above until your 3 commits came > > > in and fixed that particular FDT placement. To me this qualifies as a > > > bug fix, and given that the 3 (now 4) commits applied without hunks, it > > > seems reasonable to me to back port those to stable. > > > > As this isn't a regression, why not just use 5.12 on these platforms? > > Why is 5.4 and 5.10 needed? > > Actually I think it *is* a regression, but not a common one. The bug that > Ard is fixing can appear when the kernel grows over a certain size. > > If a user compile in a new set of functionality and the kernel size > reach a tripping point so that the DTB ends up just outside the 1:1 > lowmem map, disaster strikes. > > This has been a long standing mysterious bug for people using > attached device trees. Ok, then feel free to ack them when they get resubmitted. thanks, greg k-h
