From: ben.hutchings@codethink.co.uk (Ben Hutchings)
To: cip-dev@lists.cip-project.org
Subject: [cip-dev] How to back-port upstream BSP patches to CIP kernel
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 19:31:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1503081064.2047.130.camel@codethink.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <90c61c7e-2459-b2dd-56e9-f07b1d5770bd@siemens.com>
On Mon, 2017-08-07 at 10:59 -0400, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> after getting basically all patches for our Quark-based IOT2000 device
> into upstream, I did the exercise of constructing a corresponding CIP
> queue from that. The result is an almost 60 patches long series. Now I
> was wondering if that is palatable for the CIP kernel and if I'm using
> the right back-port approaches in all cases. Here is queue, first of all:
>
> https://github.com/siemens/linux/commits/queues/iot2000-cip
> (just ignore the "iot2000-hack" tip)
You need to add the upstream commit hashes to the commit messages, like
in stable backports.
> There are a number of (presumably) non-brainer patches. But then there
> are also more invasive back-ports that pulled some refactorings, such as
>
> - serial exar split-out
I think this is fine so long as both drivers (8250_pci and 8250_exar)
are tested.
> - support for platform device properties
This includes API changes (to struct property_entry and
device_add_property_set()) which I would normally want to avoid. There
are no in-tree users of these in 4.4, but CIP members might have
out-of-tree or backported drivers that use them.
> - GPIO API extension (converts gpiochip_add into a static inline wrapper
> around gpiochip_add_data -> module ABI change)
CIP doesn't make any promises about module ABI stability, so that's not
a problem in itself.
> - the whole series of EFI capsule changes
As this is all new stuff, I think it's OK. However you should remove
the "default y" for EFI_CAPSULE_QUIRK_QUARK_CSH (upstream too!).
You left out commit fb7a84cac035 "efi/capsule: Move 'capsule' to the
stack in efi_capsule_supported()".
> Besides looking at the concrete case of this queue, I was wondering if
> some general guidelines for back-porting changes from upstream could be
> derived from that.
A general guideline would be: avoid backward-incompatible API changes.
If you need to make any such changes then call attention to them when
sending patches for review.
Ben.
> Thanks in advance,
> Jan
>
> PS: I can send the series, likely in chunks, in a couple of weeks, once
> I had a chance to test the stuff on real hw (out of reach right now).
>
--
Ben Hutchings
Software Developer, Codethink Ltd.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-08-18 18:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-08-07 14:59 [cip-dev] How to back-port upstream BSP patches to CIP kernel Jan Kiszka
2017-08-18 18:31 ` Ben Hutchings [this message]
2017-08-30 7:59 ` Jan Kiszka
2017-08-30 12:11 ` Jan Kiszka
2017-08-30 14:52 ` Ben Hutchings
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1503081064.2047.130.camel@codethink.co.uk \
--to=ben.hutchings@codethink.co.uk \
--cc=cip-dev@lists.cip-project.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox