From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D72F1AA78E; Mon, 25 Nov 2024 13:28:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1732541322; cv=none; b=AZCpxjL2KSGG4v4bSxXW+HX0obnt5e7/CvgbFKXyvmPL1zQNGkVHC0jL8a+lnJCmt5J+s1LLQFK2R6efJj5xkItU7SwAu6UeZxgWFkKvcQiRlDvn7w+UDdETA9Vc06hJqyENGhr/y8ROh88PZjEMeOjduhleGK4V9GNHj+G3hSU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1732541322; c=relaxed/simple; bh=NoZVCppL8F6xXg/rkssmXdlSEzoxZVEEPwLIm3+L6NA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=lLtCcZkwzxCdBcqeqLP6YUZGj0/+zjTZMOTPMIZGDT5RiQMLbUEEE/ezjeaCaB2ctcg9y1Zwnq0jYVnQ8NWzKJEYNxvKT9yahIEw8RPCfZMVYvv5KelEDNL3c6r8ohDMefIiADRpJJyAYMU4eAUpOcRXiLevH7aR4Waam2t7Nw4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=lpGUPoDy; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="lpGUPoDy" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D7A2AC4CECE; Mon, 25 Nov 2024 13:28:41 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1732541322; bh=NoZVCppL8F6xXg/rkssmXdlSEzoxZVEEPwLIm3+L6NA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=lpGUPoDy+lpjK8ovjXSc/xTMJcV/SY4/HKvoVZEEDnvvbJnNYIvocXaQWHC7cxWo5 YX9mLLmF1/LeyQ2yyfuh6BDUE70R7hsShSjVsGlkvB7fp0/oR2lyx5PQynjXUusnba uijAWtWfKBwHhYBaKFpycH1jpWwHKBwGeDb6tma5XC5AuT8ZETsvTh5+tNXcqONUr9 mppQPAnFzNp3xrS5j3jhn5v+YONueox1fx2+IV1pRuHz7GNF+cY8NzJOJIvt4dIsOb E16naW+VWwsEDo17U5VvRmf2NsACxEPK0VI13B5MtbJKZ7h0Gx3nNRjX4oxHGmeI/Z JzKuaEIfZ31Ww== Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2024 08:28:40 -0500 From: Sasha Levin To: Linus Walleij Cc: Linus Torvalds , "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" , linux-kernel Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] pin control changes for v6.13 Message-ID: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 09:48:59AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: >On Sun, Nov 24, 2024 at 5:55 PM Sasha Levin wrote: > >> I've just hit the issue you've described in this PR: >(...) >> Is effectively a revert of one of the commits that are part of this PR: >> >> > pinctrl: aw9523: add missing mutex_destroy >> >> Would it make more sense to just re-do this PR without the offending >> commit? I understand that this is a fairly small fixup, but I'm >> concerned that this will just create confusion later on... > >I don't follow what you mean I should do. The offending commit is a >fix and it is already upstream since -rc4. Oh, there's something off in the PR itself: it lists "pinctrl: aw9523: add missing mutex_destroy" as a commit that is included in this PR, but really it's already upstream. Sorry, I got confused by that. >Torvalds could probably fix the issue by simply reverting >393c554093c0c4cbc8e2f178d36df169016384da >instead of applying the fixup though, it has the same textual and >semantic effect. I just tested it and it works fine. > >^Torvalds: looks like revert on top is a better idea than fixups >so we don't upset the stable maintainer scripts. Yes, a revert would be nicer as it'll make sure we can easily get it to older stable trees. -- Thanks, Sasha