On 12/09/20 7:45 am, Wolfram Sang wrote: > On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 08:39:50PM +0000, Chris Packham wrote: >> On 9/09/20 8:23 pm, Wolfram Sang wrote: >>> On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 08:32:47AM +1200, Evan Nimmo wrote: >>>> If something goes wrong (such as the SCL being stuck low) then we need >>>> to reset the PCA chip. The issue with this is that on reset we lose all >>>> config settings and the chip ends up in a disabled state which results >>>> in a lock up/high CPU usage. We need to re-apply any configuration that >>>> had previously been set and re-enable the chip. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Evan Nimmo <evan.nimmo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> Reviewed-by: Chris Packham <chris.packham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> Reviewed-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> Applied to for-current, thanks! >>> >>> For the record, were you able to test both, PCA9564 and PCA9665? >>> >> Our hardware platforms only have PCA9665 so that's all we can test. > Okay, good to know. BTW, just after I sent out my pull request > containing this patch, I noticed there is no Fixes: tag. So, if you want > this patch to be backported, please send it to stable@ once my > pull-request is in Linus' tree. For our purposes being in Linus's tree is good enough. We've already back-ported it to our kernel fork (which doesn't really track any of the stable branches properly). I'm happy to route it to stable@ if you think it's worth it but I don't think there's a specific Fixes: reference that can be used. The current behavior appears to have been that way since before git (looks like we noticed in 2014 but it's taken me 6 years to nag people into sending their fixes upstream).
