Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: qcom: sc8280xp-pmics: fix pon compatible and registers

Johan Hovold
2023-04-03T10:54:42Z

On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 11:18:07AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 27/03/2023 14:29, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > The pmk8280 PMIC PON peripheral is gen3 and uses two sets of registers;
> > hlos and pbs.
> >
> > This specifically fixes the following error message during boot when the
> > pbs registers are not defined:
> >
> > PON_PBS address missing, can't read HW debounce time
> >
> > Note that this also enables the spurious interrupt workaround introduced
> > by commit 0b65118e6ba3 ("Input: pm8941-pwrkey - add software key press
> > debouncing support") (which may or may not be needed).
> >
> > Fixes: ccd3517faf18 ("arm64: dts: qcom: sc8280xp: Add reference device")
> > Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp-pmics.dtsi | 5 +++--
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp-pmics.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp-pmics.dtsi
> > index c35e7f6bd657..a0ba535bb6c9 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp-pmics.dtsi
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp-pmics.dtsi
> > @@ -59,8 +59,9 @@ pmk8280: pmic@0 {
> > #size-cells = <0>;
> >
> > pmk8280_pon: pon@1300 {
> > - compatible = "qcom,pm8998-pon";
> > - reg = <0x1300>;
> > + compatible = "qcom,pmk8350-pon";
>
> Same comment as Dmitry's. There is no compatible "qcom,pmk8350-pon"
> ccd3517faf18, therefore indicated backport (through AUTOSEL) will lead
> to invalid stable kernel.
>
> You must drop the Fixes tag, because this cannot be backported.

That's bullshit. Do you see a stable tag? Is 5.19-stable still active?

The problem is that the driver was updated before the binding was so the
above mentioned probe error has been there since this file was merged.

AUTOSEL is crazy and people apparently just ignore it instead of NAKing
when it is suggesting backporting devicetree cleanups (which to be fair
should generally not have Fixes tags in the first place).

If 5.19-stable was still active and someone suggested backporting this
one, they would have to change the compatible string to match the
inconsistent 5.19 kernel. Note that that would need to happen regardless
of whether this patch has a Fixes tag or not.

Johan