On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 02:44:19PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 2:18 PM Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 12:58:32PM +0000, Guillaume Tucker wrote:
> Please see the bisection report below about a boot failure, it
> looks legit as this commit was made today:
> > Fix it by ignoring the config in the device tree for now: the
> > later patches in the series will push all inversion handling
> > over to the gpiolib core and set it up properly in the
> > boardfiles for legacy devices, but I did not finish that
> > for this kernel cycle.
So here the patch clearly says it is for "this kernel cycle"
which I feel implies that it is NOT for any previous kernels
stable or not...
This read to me as if this patch plasters the issue for now, and a
proper fix will follow in the next cycle.
I'm sorry if I missed the "look at this thing that we will
apply to stable soon" mail, sadly there are just too many
of these for me to handle sometimes. (Maybe it means I
am making too many mistakes to begin with, mea culpa.)
> > Reported-by: Leonard Crestez <leonard.crestez@xxxxxxx>
> > Reported-by: Fabio Estevam <festevam@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Reported-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reported-by: Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Tested-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx>
Oh dear, this is another bot backported commit which I suspect is
lacking some context or other from all the other work that was done with
GPIO enables :(
This AI seems a bit confused :/
Maybe it is the prolific use of the word "fix" that triggers it?
Right, it's a combo of a few things: one of them is indeed the work
"fix", but few others are the Reported-by tags, the simplicity of the
commit, and so on.
I'll drop this patch, sorry about this.
--
Thanks,
Sasha
