Re: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] pinctrl: intel: Avoid potential glitches if pin is in GPIO" failed to apply to 4.19-stable tree

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 08:19:07AM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 06:59:53AM +0100, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > 
> > The patch below does not apply to the 4.19-stable tree.
> > If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm
> > tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit
> > id to <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>.
> > 
> > thanks,
> > 
> > greg k-h
> > 
> > ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------
> > 
> > From 29c2c6aa32405dfee4a29911a51ba133edcedb0f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 12:51:04 +0300
> > Subject: [PATCH] pinctrl: intel: Avoid potential glitches if pin is in GPIO
> > mode
> > 
> > When consumer requests a pin, in order to be on the safest side,
> > we switch it first to GPIO mode followed by immediate transition
> > to the input state. Due to posted writes it's luckily to be a single
> > I/O transaction.
> > 
> > However, if firmware or boot loader already configures the pin
> > to the GPIO mode, user expects no glitches for the requested pin.
> > We may check if the pin is pre-configured and leave it as is
> > till the actual consumer toggles its state to avoid glitches.
> 
> I've queued it up for 4.19, it was just a minor conflict with
> e58926e781d8 ("pinctrl: intel: Use GENMASK() consistently").

Thank you!

> However, for 4.14 and older:
> 
> > Fixes: 7981c0015af2 ("pinctrl: intel: Add Intel Sunrisepoint pin controller and GPIO support")
> > Depends-on: f5a26acf0162 ("pinctrl: intel: Initialize GPIO properly when used through irqchip")
> 
> We need to take this "Depends-on" commit, but in the past we have
> reverted it:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180427135732.999030511@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/

Yes, as the commit says that we have a lot of dependencies.

> So I didn't do anything with this patch for <=4.14.

So far so good, thanks!

P.S. In case we need it in the future, we will prepare a backport patch
ourselves.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Development Newbies]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux