On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 04:25:39PM +0000, Alexey Brodkin wrote: > Hi Greg, > > > > May we have this one back-ported to linux-4.19.y? > > > > > > It was initially applied to Linus' tree during 5.0 development > > > cycle [1] but was never back-ported. > > > > > > Now w/o that patch in KernelCI we see boot failure on ARC HSDK > > > board [2] as opposed to normally working later kernel versions. > > > > > > [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=493a2f812446e92bcb1e69a77381b4d39808d730 > > > [2] https://storage.kernelci.org/stable/linux-4.19.y/v4.19.59/arc/hsdk_defconfig/gcc-8/lab-baylibre/boot-hsdk.txt > > > > > > Below is that same patch but rebased on linux-4.19 as in its pristine > > > form it won't apply due to offset of one of hunks. > > > > Why is this patch ok for stable kernel trees? Are you not removing > > existing support in 4.19 for a feature that people might be using there? > > What bug is this fixing that requires this removal? > > This patch removes a Kconfig option in a trade for properly working > detection of arguments passed from U-Boot. > > Back in the day [3] we had to add that option to get kernel reliably working > in use-cases w/o U-Boot (those were typically loading kernel image via JTAG). > But with a couple of fixes applied to linux-4.19.y already we no longer need > that explicit toggle as we may rely on data passed via dedicated registers > and thus automatically know if there was U-Boot which passed some info to > the kernel or there was no U-Boot and we don't need to mess with garbage in > those registers. > > Main reason is to make vanilla 4.19.y kernels usable on HSDK board in KernelCI > environment. Now they don't boot, see [2] as in HSDK's defconfig ARC_UBOOT_SUPPORT > is not set. So we have 2 solutions: > > 1. Add ARC_UBOOT_SUPPORT to arch/arc/configs/hsdk_defconfig > But we cannot do it for vanilla kernel because we simply cannot even submit that > change to the Linus' tree as that Kconfig option was removed. > Which means we cannot back-port it, right :) > > 2. Back-port proposed patch which already exists in the Linus'tree and thus is > perfectly back-portable. > > Makes sense? Ok, it's your arch, you get to deal with the angry users if you have any :) now queued up. greg k-h _______________________________________________ linux-snps-arc mailing list linux-snps-arc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc
