On 03/02/2023 16:51, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 2/3/23 04:28, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 03/02/2023 12:04, Naresh Kamboju wrote: >>> On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 at 15:48, Greg Kroah-Hartman >>> <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.19.272 release. >>>> There are 80 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response >>>> to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please >>>> let me know. >>>> >>>> Responses should be made by Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:09:58 +0000. >>>> Anything received after that time might be too late. >>>> >>>> The whole patch series can be found in one patch at: >>>> https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/stable-review/patch-4.19.272-rc1.gz >>>> or in the git tree and branch at: >>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-4.19.y >>>> and the diffstat can be found below. >>>> >>>> thanks, >>>> >>>> greg k-h >>>> >>> >>> Following patch caused build error on arm, >>> >>>> Gaosheng Cui <cuigaosheng1@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> memory: mvebu-devbus: Fix missing clk_disable_unprepare in mvebu_devbus_probe() >>> >>> drivers/memory/mvebu-devbus.c: In function 'mvebu_devbus_probe': >>> drivers/memory/mvebu-devbus.c:297:8: error: implicit declaration of >>> function 'devm_clk_get_enabled' >>> [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] >>> 297 | clk = devm_clk_get_enabled(&pdev->dev, NULL); >>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> Already reported: >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/202302020048.ZsmUJDHo-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/ >> > > I don't usually check if release candidate reports have been reported already. > If I know about it, I may add a reference to the report, but typically I still > report it. > > Personally I find it discouraging to get those "already reported" e-mails. > To me it sounds like "hey, you didn't do your job properly". It should not matter > if a problem was already reported or not, and I find it valuable if it is > reported multiple times because it gives an indication of the level of test > coverage. I would find it better if people would use something like "Also > reported:" instead. But then maybe I am just oversensitive, who knows. > > Anyway, yes, I noticed this problem as well (and probably overlooked it > in my previous report to Greg - sorry for that). > Let me rephrase it then: This topic is already discussed here: https://lore.kernel.org/all/202302020048.ZsmUJDHo-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/ I proposed to drop both broken backports - mvebu-devbus and atmel-sdramc, because they require new features in common clock framework API. Best regards, Krzysztof
