On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 08:10:32PM +0100, Stephan Gerhold wrote:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 01:55:30PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 05:15:33PM +0100, Stephan Gerhold wrote: > On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 10:32:53AM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 02:33:30PM +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 fb4fbc8904e786537e29329d791147389e1465a2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > > From: Stephan Gerhold <stephan@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 13:41:20 +0100 > > > Subject: [PATCH] iio: imu: st_lsm6dsx: Fix selection of ST_LSM6DS3_ID > > > > > > At the moment, attempting to probe a device with ST_LSM6DS3_ID > > > (e.g. using the st,lsm6ds3 compatible) fails with: > > > > > > st_lsm6dsx_i2c 1-006b: unsupported whoami [69] > > > > > > ... even though 0x69 is the whoami listed for ST_LSM6DS3_ID. > > > > > > This happens because st_lsm6dsx_check_whoami() also attempts > > > to match unspecified (zero-initialized) entries in the "id" array. > > > ST_LSM6DS3_ID = 0 will therefore match any entry in > > > st_lsm6dsx_sensor_settings (here: the first), because none of them > > > actually have all 12 entries listed in the "id" array. > > > > > > Avoid this by additionally checking if "name" is set, > > > which is only set for valid entries in the "id" array. > > > > > > Note: Although the problem was introduced earlier it did not surface until > > > commit 52f4b1f19679 ("iio: imu: st_lsm6dsx: add support for accel/gyro unit of lsm9ds1") > > > because ST_LSM6DS3_ID was the first entry in st_lsm6dsx_sensor_settings. > > > > > > Fixes: d068e4a0f921 ("iio: imu: st_lsm6dsx: add support to multiple devices with the same settings") > > > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 5.4 > > > Acked-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Stephan Gerhold <stephan@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > I don't think that this is needed on anything older than 5.4 because > > they don't have 801a6e0af0c6 ("iio: imu: st_lsm6dsx: add support to > > LSM6DSO"), the fixes tag might be misleading here a bit. > > Correct. I didn't want to use 801a6e0af0c6 ("iio: imu: st_lsm6dsx: add > support to LSM6DSO") as Fixes tag because that commit did not do > anything wrong - the problem was introduced earlier, but there is no way > to trigger it on older kernels. > > This is why I added # 5.5 to the Cc: stable tag. > Are these comments still used in any way? > Or is there a better way to encode this into the commit message? Usually if there's a fixes: tag we'll look at that rather than the version appended to the stable tag. Consider maybe using two "Fixes:" tags to point at the commits that were involved.So basically this Fixes: d068e4a0f921 ("iio: imu: st_lsm6dsx: add support to multiple devices with the same settings") Fixes: 52f4b1f19679 ("iio: imu: st_lsm6dsx: add support for accel/gyro unit of lsm9ds1") would mean "fixes the combination of these two commits"?
Yup! -- Thanks, Sasha
