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?
thanks,
greg k-h
