On Mon, Dec 02, 2024 at 06:28:45PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > On Fri, Nov 29, 2024 at 01:55:37PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 29, 2024 at 02:54:12PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > > On all Qcom endpoint SoCs, BAR0/BAR2 are 64bit BARs by default > > > and software cannot change the type. So mark the those BARs as > > > 64bit BARs and also mark the successive BAR1/BAR3 as RESERVED > > > BARs so that the EPF drivers cannot use them. > ... > > > Cc: stable+noautosel@xxxxxxxxxx # depends on patch introducing only_64bit flag > > > > If stable maintainers need to act on this, do they need to search for > > the patch introducing only_64bit flag? That seems onerous; is there a > > SHA1 that would make it easier? > > But that's not the point of having noautosel tag, AFAIK. > > Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst clearly says that this > tag is to be used when we do not want the stable team to backport > the commit due to a missing dependency. > ... > Here I did not intend to backport this change with commit adding > only_64bit flag because, I'm not sure if that dependency alone would > be sufficient. If someone really cares about backporting this > change, then they should figure out the dependencies, test the > functionality and then ask the stable team. Oh, sorry, I was assuming "stable+noautosel@xxxxxxxxxx" was a hint for stable maintainers to pick this up, not a hint to ignore it. Eventually this meaning will sink in. Bjorn
