On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 15:56:47 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 02:29:35PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 14:07:03 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > 5.15-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> > >
> > > ------------------
> > >
> > > From: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > [ Upstream commit 1e1d6582f483a4dba4ea03445e6f2f05d9de5bcf ]
> > >
> > > If FEATURE_BLOCK_BUFFER is set then bit SMBAUXCTL_E32B is supported
> > > and there's no benefit in reading it back. Origin of this check
> > > seems to be 14 yrs ago when people were not completely sure which
> > > chip versions support the block buffer mode.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Reviewed-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@xxxxxxx>
> > > Tested-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@xxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Stable-dep-of: c1c9d0f6f7f1 ("i2c: i801: Fix block process call transactions")
> >
> > There is no functional dependency between these 2 commits. The context
> > change which causes the second commit to fail to apply without the
> > first commit is trivial to fix. I can provide a patch for version 5.15
> > and older. I think it is preferable to backporting an extra patch which
> > wouldn't otherwise qualify for stable trees.
>
> This is already in a released kernel. We can revert them, if you want
> us to, is it worth it?
Oops, I'm just back from vacation and did not realize this was already
released. Let it be then, no big deal.
--
Jean Delvare
SUSE L3 Support
