On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 02:33:57PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 02:24:13PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 01:10:09PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 01:59:27PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 07:12:55PM +0100, 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>.
> > > >
> > > > No need for v5.4.
> > > >
> > > > Please, also drop
> > > > gpio-pca953x-set-irq-type-when-handle-intel-galileo-gen-2.patch
> > > > gpiolib-acpi-allow-to-find-gpioint-resource-by-name-and-index.patch
> > > >
> > > > from 5.4-stable queue, thanks!
> > >
> > > Why? If you look at the first commit above, it says:
> > > Fixes: ba8c90c61847 ("gpio: pca953x: Override IRQ for one of the expanders on Galileo Gen 2")
> > >
> > > which is in the 5.4.52 kernel release. So why shouldn't it go there?
> > >
> > > Same goes for the
> > > gpiolib-acpi-allow-to-find-gpioint-resource-by-name-and-index.patch
> > > patch.
> > >
> > > Is your marking of the "Fixes:" tags incorrect somehow?
> > >
> > > confused,
> >
> > It has also Depends-on which points out that the regression only visible when
> > that commit is in the tree.
> >
> > If you want to see them in v5.4, I can backport the series.
>
> Since the other two in your queue, you may try to use this one, which I have
> sent for v5.10.y, but it seems good enough for v5.4.
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20210312121542.67389-1-andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#u
Ok, this looks to not make sense for 5.4.y, so I've dropped all of the
gpiolib patches from there, and fixed up the 5.10.y ones, so we should
be all good now.
thanks,
greg k-h
