From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/20] ARM: dts: aspeed-g4: Correct VUART IRQ number Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 12:38:18 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20171211050704.20621-1-joel@jms.id.au> <20171211050704.20621-4-joel@jms.id.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Joel Stanley Cc: Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , Andrew Jeffery , Patrick Venture , Xo Wang , Lei YU , =?UTF-8?Q?C=C3=A9dric_Le_Goater?= , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Jeremy Kerr , DTML , Linux ARM , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-aspeed@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Joel Stanley wrote: > On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Joel Stanley wrote: >>> This should have always been 8. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Joel Stanley >> >> As this is a bugfix, should we backport it to stable kernels? When you >> fix a bug, >> I generally recommend including a 'Fixes' tag with the commit ID of the patch >> that introduced the problem, and either a 'Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org' tag >> if you want it backported, or an explanation in the changelog why it should >> not get backported. This really helps Greg and the other stable maintainers >> trying to make a decision what to backport and what not. > > We could do this, and I generally follow the practice of adding Fixes > tags. I hadn't because without an upstream clock driver, the Aspeed > port is not usable by anyone without making modifications. We're > really depending on getting that code merged. > > I will send it as a fix to 4.15. Do you mind taking individual patches > for the arm dt tree, or would you prefer a pull request? For bugfixes, we don't distinguish between DT and other fixes. If it's a single patch, a pull request works just as well as a emailed patch, your choice. Arnd