Re: [PATCH 4/4] ARM: tegra: correct Colibri T20 regulator settings

[Stephen Warren <swarren-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org>]

On 07/23/2013 01:35 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 23.07.2013, 11:07 -0700 schrieb Stephen Warren:
>> On 07/21/2013 02:28 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
...
>>> SM2 is not a the parent of LDO regs, but actually the DDR regulator. The
>>> Colibri uses a different version of the TPS with other voltage mapping
>>> tables for SM2, currently we cheat by setting a fake 3,2V which results
>>> in 1,8V physical.
...
>> But is this a regression? If not, how far back in CC: stable should this
>> change go?
> 
> This is not a regression. It was introduced with the original Colibri
> T20 commit and was caused by Toradex not providing any schematics for
> the Module plus me not physically checking this voltage rail before
> pushing things out.

FYI, the reason I ask is that there's more push-back on adding patches
late in the rc cycle (or after release, to -stable) for things that are
not regressions. A safety issue like over-voltage might well still
qualify to be accepted, but fixes for regressions are even more likely
to be accepted.