On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 9:51 AM Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 3/2/2023 9:20 AM, Saravana Kannan wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 9:01 AM Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Saravana, > >> > >> Am 02.03.23 um 03:35 schrieb Saravana Kannan: > >>> This allow fw_devlink to do dependency tracking for serdev devices. > >>> > >>> Reported-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx> > >>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/03b70a8a-0591-f28b-a567-9d2f736f17e5@xxxxxxxxx/ > >>> Cc: Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@xxxxxxxx> > >>> Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> since this fixes an issue on Raspberry Pi 4, shouldn't this be mentioned > >> in the commit message and providing a Fixes tag? > > > > So RPi 4 was never creating a device links between serdev devices and > > their consumers. The error message was just a new one I added and we > > are noticing and catching the fact that serdev wasn't setting fwnode > > for a device. > > > > I'm also not sure if I can say this commit "Fixes" an issue in serdev > > core because when serdev core was written, fw_devlink wasn't a thing. > > Once I add Fixes, people will start pulling this into stable > > branches/other trees where I don't think this should be pulled into > > older stable branches. > > That is kind of the point of Fixes: tag, is not it? It is appropriate to > list a commit that is not specific to serdev, but maybe a particular > point into the fw_devlink history. I don't want to pick an arbitrary point in fw_devlink as I don't want people picking this up with some old version of fw_devlink and having to support it there. > Given this did not appear to have a > functional impact, we could go without one. This is my take too. Greg/Rob, If you really want a Fixes here, can you please just add it instead of a v2 patch just for that? You can use this commit: 3fb16866b51d driver core: fw_devlink: Make cycle detection more robust -Saravana
