Hi Krzysztof,
On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 10:48 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 29/06/2022 20:48, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >> You sure? Except rebasing I don't see that. rpcif_sw_init() received the
> >> rpcif so it had access to all fields.
> >
> > Yes I am, don't be misguided by the name of the local variable.
> > The rpcif structure is allocated by the HF or SPI child driver,
> > and thus not available in the RPC core driver's .probe() function.
> > The rpc_priv structure (as of patch 4) is allocated by the RPC core driver.
> >
> >>> I agree patches 1-3 could be moved later, if you think it is worthwhile.
> >>
> >> This would not be enough, it has to be first patch to be backportable.
> >
> > I can make it second? ;-)
>
> Why? The point is that this commit should have Fixes or Cc-stable tag.
> If you make it depending on other non-backportable commit, stable folks
> cannot pull it automatically.
Because the current driver structure does not allow us to fix the
problem in a simple way. Hence the need for patch 4 first.
> > Note that that still precludes (easily) backporting s2ram support.
>
> But S2R is a feature so it won't be backported...
Working rebind is a feature, too?
Actually non-working s2ram is worse, as it returns corrupted data
(haven't dared to try writing after s2ram yet ;-), while non-working
rebind means you just cannot access the device anymore.
But note there are still issues with s2ram...
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
