On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 08:26:55AM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 6:41 AM <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > The patch below does not apply to the 5.4-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 a95881d6aa2c000e3649f27a1a7329cf356e6bb3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > From: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2021 19:16:23 -0800 > > Subject: [PATCH] pinctrl: qcom: Properly clear "intr_ack_high" interrupts when > > unmasking > > I think for 5.4 the most expedient thing is to take these two: > > a95881d6aa2c pinctrl: qcom: Properly clear "intr_ack_high" interrupts > when unmasking > 4079d35fa4fc pinctrl: qcom: No need to read-modify-write the interrupt status > > Then it should apply cleanly and you'll get this one fix. > > After fixing, you might hit the next failure when trying to apply > ("pinctrl: qcom: Don't clear pending interrupts when enabling"). That > one might be slightly harder to backport since it interacts with the > PDC patches. Presumably anyone running a real system on 5.4 also has > the PDC patches backported so they can get wakeup, but getting all the > PDC support in 5.4 stable would probably be too much of a "feature" > for linux-stable? In any case, my default answer for that I'd be > happy to help review a backport if someone saw a benefit but I won't > attempt it myself. Ok, I'll just not worry about these for 5.4.y for now, thanks! greg k-h