Quoting Tero Kristo (2019-10-24 01:03:20) > On 02/10/2019 15:06, Tero Kristo wrote: > > Hi, > > > > The existing divider clock support appears to have an inherent bug > > because of the bit field width implementation and limitation of divider > > values based on this. The limitation by bit field only is not enough, > > as we can have divider settings which accept only certain range of > > dividers within the full range of the bit-field. > > > > Because of this, the divider clock is re-implemented to use min,max,mask > > values instead of just the bit-field. > > Queued this up for 5.4 fixes, thanks. Is this a regression in 5.4-rc series? Please only send fixes for code that is broken by code that went into the merge window, or is super annoying and broken but we somehow didn't notice. If not, just let it sit in -next until the next merge window and it may still be backported to stable trees anyway.
