Hi Jean,
On 04/25/2017 06:30 AM, Jean Delvare wrote:
Hi Guenter,
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 08:24:07 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Sun, Apr 09, 2017 at 03:38:06PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:05:03 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
I'll submit the patch as-is upstream; at least it doesn't break anything.
If it doesn't fix your problem, we'll have to look at it again at a later
point.
Given that this patch fixes a regression in kernels v4.7 to v.4.10,
shouldn't it go to stable@?
The patch has a Fixes: tag, so that should happen automatically.
I'll have to check if it applies cleanly to earlier kernels and if
necessary send backport(s) to Greg.
I took a look at stable branches v4.9 and v4.10 and I can't find this
fix. Do you still plan to check if the fix applies and poke Greg about
it? Or do you want me to do it?
Severe lack of time on my side, sorry. Feel free to do it if you have some slack.
As a side note, I think the second half of the patch is redundant, it
only makes registration slightly faster on IT8705F, and could have bad
side effects at least in theory. The first half seems sufficient to
me...
It only affects systems with two Super-IO chips, and I wanted to play safe. The
worst side effect I can imagine would be that a second chip in a system with
IT8705 as first chip would not be accepted, which is not worse than before
when only one chip was supported.
But isn't as good as doing the right thing, which would require less
code. So I don't really follow your logic.
Call it paranoia. I have not received feedback if the patch is actually working,
and I am unable to test it myself. Feel free to send a patch to remove the redundant
part if you think it should be dropped.
Thanks,
Guenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-hwmon" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
