Re: [PATCH 4.19 00/80] 4.19.272-rc1 review

Krzysztof Kozlowski
2023-02-03T16:56:35Z

On 03/02/2023 16:51, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 2/3/23 04:28, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 03/02/2023 12:04, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
>>> On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 at 15:48, Greg Kroah-Hartman
>>> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.19.272 release.
>>>> There are 80 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
>>>> to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
>>>> let me know.
>>>>
>>>> Responses should be made by Sun, 05 Feb 2023 10:09:58 +0000.
>>>> Anything received after that time might be too late.
>>>>
>>>> The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
>>>> https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/stable-review/patch-4.19.272-rc1.gz
>>>> or in the git tree and branch at:
>>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-4.19.y
>>>> and the diffstat can be found below.
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>>
>>>> greg k-h
>>>>
>>>
>>> Following patch caused build error on arm,
>>>
>>>> Gaosheng Cui <cuigaosheng1@huawei.com>
>>>> memory: mvebu-devbus: Fix missing clk_disable_unprepare in mvebu_devbus_probe()
>>>
>>> drivers/memory/mvebu-devbus.c: In function 'mvebu_devbus_probe':
>>> drivers/memory/mvebu-devbus.c:297:8: error: implicit declaration of
>>> function 'devm_clk_get_enabled'
>>> [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>>> 297 | clk = devm_clk_get_enabled(&pdev->dev, NULL);
>>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> Already reported:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/202302020048.ZsmUJDHo-lkp@intel.com/
>>
>
> I don't usually check if release candidate reports have been reported already.
> If I know about it, I may add a reference to the report, but typically I still
> report it.
>
> Personally I find it discouraging to get those "already reported" e-mails.
> To me it sounds like "hey, you didn't do your job properly". It should not matter
> if a problem was already reported or not, and I find it valuable if it is
> reported multiple times because it gives an indication of the level of test
> coverage. I would find it better if people would use something like "Also
> reported:" instead. But then maybe I am just oversensitive, who knows.
>
> Anyway, yes, I noticed this problem as well (and probably overlooked it
> in my previous report to Greg - sorry for that).
>

Let me rephrase it then:

This topic is already discussed here:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/202302020048.ZsmUJDHo-lkp@intel.com/

I proposed to drop both broken backports - mvebu-devbus and
atmel-sdramc, because they require new features in common clock
framework API.

Best regards,
Krzysztof