From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 15:30:45 +0200 From: Jean Delvare To: Guenter Roeck Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux , linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: it87 causes VIA hardware to lockup Message-ID: <20170425153045.0c44641b@endymion> In-Reply-To: <20170409152407.GB23984@roeck-us.net> References: <20170312103413.GJ21222@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> <20170312132544.GA17687@roeck-us.net> <20170312141522.GL21222@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> <20170312142634.GA1917@roeck-us.net> <20170321134430.GA3177@roeck-us.net> <20170321140812.GZ21222@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> <20170321170503.GC13789@roeck-us.net> <20170409153806.6dac6bbd@endymion> <20170409152407.GB23984@roeck-us.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-ID: Hi Guenter, On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 08:24:07 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Sun, Apr 09, 2017 at 03:38:06PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > > On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:05:03 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > I'll submit the patch as-is upstream; at least it doesn't break anything. > > > If it doesn't fix your problem, we'll have to look at it again at a later > > > point. > > > > Given that this patch fixes a regression in kernels v4.7 to v.4.10, > > shouldn't it go to stable@? > > The patch has a Fixes: tag, so that should happen automatically. > I'll have to check if it applies cleanly to earlier kernels and if > necessary send backport(s) to Greg. I took a look at stable branches v4.9 and v4.10 and I can't find this fix. Do you still plan to check if the fix applies and poke Greg about it? Or do you want me to do it? > > As a side note, I think the second half of the patch is redundant, it > > only makes registration slightly faster on IT8705F, and could have bad > > side effects at least in theory. The first half seems sufficient to > > me... > > It only affects systems with two Super-IO chips, and I wanted to play safe. The > worst side effect I can imagine would be that a second chip in a system with > IT8705 as first chip would not be accepted, which is not worse than before > when only one chip was supported. But isn't as good as doing the right thing, which would require less code. So I don't really follow your logic. -- Jean Delvare SUSE L3 Support