From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1031142Ab2B2PF4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:05:56 -0500 Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.29]:38458 "EHLO out5-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1031128Ab2B2PFy (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:05:54 -0500 X-Sasl-enc: Dl4BNLmuGFTGUyYWd9V8YcPAfCCdqDbEjhC1MmoZ38oX 1330527953 Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 06:57:25 -0800 From: Greg KH To: Tomi Valkeinen Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: OMAP4 HDMI PHY bug work-around for stable Message-ID: <20120229145725.GA26024@kroah.com> References: <1328787865.1909.64.camel@deskari> <1330416193.2123.4.camel@deskari> <20120228164702.GB11021@kroah.com> <1330506444.1934.20.camel@deskari> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1330506444.1934.20.camel@deskari> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:07:24AM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > On Tue, 2012-02-28 at 08:47 -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > > Sorry, but I don't accept pull requests. I need patches in email form, > > as described in the file, Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt. Please > > feel free to send them from your git tree that way. > > Ah, I somehow missed that txt when googling about the stable kernel. > Thanks for pointing it out. > > > That seems like a lot of backporting for a single fix, but I'll be glad > > to review them when you send them. > > This is something that is not quite clear to me: > > Should I strive for keeping the patches for stable as close as possible > to the ones in mainline, and thus possibly being forced to take other > extra patches with the actual fix as I did here Yes. If that is what is happening here, that's fine, just tell me. > or > > should I just rather cook up a new patch which just fixes the problem > without caring about any cleanups etc. that are in the mainline, and > thus possibly creating a rather different patch compared to mainline's > version? No, the first one. thanks, greg k-h