Re: [GIT PULL] pin control changes for v6.13

[Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Nov 24, 2024 at 5:55 PM Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I've just hit the issue you've described in this PR:
(...)
> Is effectively a revert of one of the commits that are part of this PR:
>
> >      pinctrl: aw9523: add missing mutex_destroy
>
> Would it make more sense to just re-do this PR without the offending
> commit? I understand that this is a fairly small fixup, but I'm
> concerned that this will just create confusion later on...

I don't follow what you mean I should do. The offending commit is a
fix and it is already upstream since -rc4.

Torvalds could probably fix the issue by simply reverting
393c554093c0c4cbc8e2f178d36df169016384da
instead of applying the fixup though, it has the same textual and
semantic effect. I just tested it and it works fine.

^Torvalds: looks like revert on top is a better idea than fixups
so we don't upset the stable maintainer scripts.

Yours,
Linus Walleij