Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] tpm_tis: Clean up force module parameter

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 09:21:47AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Cc += gregkh
> 
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 10:11:14AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 03:22:23PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 11:33:51PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I went through the patches and didn't see anything that would shock me
> > > > enough not to apply the patches in the current if they also work when
> > > > tested *but* are these release critical for Linux v4.4?
> > > > 
> > > > I got a bit confused about the discussion that was going on about "where
> > > > to fix the probe" crash whether or not both it should be fixed in both
> > > > places.
> > > 
> > > I'm also confused by that..
> > > 
> > > It sounds like force=1 is broken in 4.4 right now - do we care? Should
> > > we fix this by using Martin's patch?
> > > 
> > > These changes are complex enough they really shouldn't go into 4.4
> > > unless absolutely necessary.
> > 
> > The reasons I'm asking this are:
> > 
> > * I'm planning to do v4.5 pull request soon.
> > * If this need to be get this into v4.4, we should act fast. Given the
> >   complexity of the changes I'd not recommend that unless it is a life
> >   and death question.
> 
> I'd say we should repair b8b2c7d845d5 ("base/platform: assert that
> dev_pm_domain callbacks are called unconditionally") for 4.4-rc$next and
> live with the problem that the tpm driver had since long another
> release.

I was going to queue up
	Subject: [PATCH] base/platform: fix panic when probe function is NULL

for 4.4-final, unless you all object to that.

thanks,

greg k-h