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
