On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 02:48:27PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote: > Hi, Hi Felipe, > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 03:37:48PM -0700, David Cohen wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 02:43:27PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 11:41:56AM -0700, David Cohen wrote: > > > > From: Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> > > > > > > missing the required: > > > > > > [ Upstream commit bc5ba2e0b829c9397f96df1191c7d2319ebc36d9 ] > > > > > > > > > > > When going into bus suspend/resume we _must_ > > > > call gadget driver's ->suspend/->resume callbacks > > > > accordingly. This patch implements that very feature > > > > which has been missing forever. > > > > > > > > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 3.14 > > > > Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> > > > > Signed-off-by: David Cohen <david.a.cohen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > This patch was introduced on v3.15. > > > > But the issue it fixes already existed on v3.14 and v3.14 is a long term > > > > support version. > > > > > > Can you show me a log of this breaking anywhere ? Why do you consider > > > this a bug fix ? What sort of drawbacks did you notice ? > > > > We're seeing BC1.2 compliance test failure. I borrowed this info from > > the bug report :) > > > > 1. BC1.2 compliance testing - SDP2.0 > > ----------------------------------------------- > > 1. On Connect to active Host (Expected result: 100mA to 500mA): > > Actual result 100mA to 500mA > > > > 2. On Host Suspend (ER: Fall back to 0mA): > > not falling back to 0mA, remains at 500mA > > > > 3. On Connect to Suspended Host (ER: 100mA to 0mA): > > cable-props shown as 100mA, which means drawing a current of 100mA from > > Suspended Host > > > > 4. On making Host active (ER: 500mA): > > 500mA > > But we don't support Battery Charging with dwc3 as of now :-) In fact, > just note that none of the BC registers are even defined in the current > driver anywhere. Seems like you should cherry-pick these to your vendor > tree, but v3.14 vanilla, because it doesn't support BC1.2, can't be > claimed to be at fault, right ? We could call it a missing feature that could lead to a potential bug :) By your own comment, he "must" was stressed out: ''' When going into bus suspend/resume we _must_ call gadget driver's ->suspend/->resume callbacks accordingly. This patch implements that very feature which has been missing forever. ''' Since v3.14 is a LTS kernel and the changes are safe, it's worth to consider. > > I'll leave the final decision to Greg and I don't really oppose having > both patches on v3.14-stable, but this is not a bug fix in my view. Thanks. I appreciate your feedback. BR, David PS: FWIW implementing features or fixing bugs aren't much different tasks: https://geekwhisperin.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/bug-vs-feature.jpg -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
