From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pa0-x22b.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22b]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1a3qF4-0004LY-5I for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 01 Dec 2015 19:05:35 +0000 Received: by pabfh17 with SMTP id fh17so14212467pab.0 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2015 11:05:13 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 11:05:10 -0800 From: Brian Norris To: Boris Brezillon Cc: David Woodhouse , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: nand: fix ONFI parameter page layout Message-ID: <20151201190510.GY64635@google.com> References: <1448274187-22174-1-git-send-email-boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> <20151130201729.GK64635@google.com> <20151201103318.16a2e46a@bbrezillon> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151201103318.16a2e46a@bbrezillon> List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 10:33:18AM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote: > On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 12:17:29 -0800 > Brian Norris wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 11:23:07AM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > > src_ssync_features field is only 1 byte large, and the 4th reserved area > > > is actually 8 bytes large. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon > > > Fixes d1e1f4e42b5 ("mtd: nand: add support for reading ONFI parameters from NAND device") > > > Cc: #v2.6.37+ > > > > Did you see an actual problem from this? (And is this deserving of > > stable?) I could imagine an out-of-tree driver might try to use t_ald > > (which should actually be t_adl, right?) > > Yes, should be t_adl, not t_ald. Do you want me to send another patch > for that, or will you take care of it? I'll send a quick patch. > > and get the wrong value. But no > > one does that in-tree yet. > > Fair enough, we can just drop the stable and fixes tag. Do you want me > to resend it? I presume this means you didn't see any actual problems caused by this patch, other than new development referencing it? Applied without the stable tag. I kept the fixes tag. Thanks, Brian