On 07/23/2013 01:35 PM, Lucas Stach wrote: > Am Dienstag, den 23.07.2013, 11:07 -0700 schrieb Stephen Warren: >> On 07/21/2013 02:28 PM, Lucas Stach wrote: ... >>> SM2 is not a the parent of LDO regs, but actually the DDR regulator. The >>> Colibri uses a different version of the TPS with other voltage mapping >>> tables for SM2, currently we cheat by setting a fake 3,2V which results >>> in 1,8V physical. ... >> But is this a regression? If not, how far back in CC: stable should this >> change go? > > This is not a regression. It was introduced with the original Colibri > T20 commit and was caused by Toradex not providing any schematics for > the Module plus me not physically checking this voltage rail before > pushing things out. FYI, the reason I ask is that there's more push-back on adding patches late in the rc cycle (or after release, to -stable) for things that are not regressions. A safety issue like over-voltage might well still qualify to be accepted, but fixes for regressions are even more likely to be accepted. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
