From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.zeus03.de (zeus03.de [194.117.254.33]) (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 5026E1FBE8D for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2025 12:56:13 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=194.117.254.33 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736340978; cv=none; b=joYs8CUQZ9fNlvZEE7WkG7rS/XHnrTdJ+EdRp+Ff9gAr0V6jANLGuIa7QiwddqK+BA8fgkgQhKOxxEoe+CQ5G8qfarNr2qgiU+LEQ0dTg0v/o+ssmHgxZCbq5yUSa8avhAhJgJDYagbKh4SUerFF4KK2JJc6odyEgbbOPxOt2go= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736340978; c=relaxed/simple; bh=8cwn6E6/BQ5Z3XCruuhKDbe6JqWw94aMY9yC8bF2a8E=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=noWGRCNBq2Yt2NHvpWT8n0YUYH+hc37Ts29PMieiJ/zosU//XzDMlnG4JpyvLILZ/cNvBHyTbyeA4Iw1Tsd0Kce5p3Dz0Y7h7RAglRm791FfZhl9JsCr9pXxMqyS2nHgaoYJqi/6HIcrIxwQVSOrKt3tv7++vSghx9c+F4Q8H6M= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=sang-engineering.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sang-engineering.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sang-engineering.com header.i=@sang-engineering.com header.b=FeH+qqje; arc=none smtp.client-ip=194.117.254.33 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=sang-engineering.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sang-engineering.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sang-engineering.com header.i=@sang-engineering.com header.b="FeH+qqje" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= sang-engineering.com; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=k1; bh=8cwn 6E6/BQ5Z3XCruuhKDbe6JqWw94aMY9yC8bF2a8E=; b=FeH+qqjeSQDz96p50uqC ErEJXc7+5dItFp0GlYk7+LHgxIOfPBj+dJuaIa2NvdWE2PX7sdOeWhabQ+9XdEXs wZeFvMDXgpSf4rSSvjbV1fwzhgICA9aj4JZuesZtWEojpMudjtCGG4htE505Zeok BD2I1OO0CyuMry6e6DG0l0wDWsH3413ixyhyXu89htITHkARZ8QgQQpQEB0upyoy BI0pyf0d9FibQOw/hz78vs51T89BafipbmenSRol3YnWFSo5Wfk8DHdZUpIekLf9 t3SlKNUDKDoQgfvx5XUosjFEyLSMlOA6XNxSyafyKv3qnWRxKWUzrz/pvB/+Vx9M oQ== Received: (qmail 2576107 invoked from network); 8 Jan 2025 13:56:06 +0100 Received: by mail.zeus03.de with ESMTPSA (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted, authenticated); 8 Jan 2025 13:56:06 +0100 X-UD-Smtp-Session: l3s3148p1@/hd7YjErpIgujntM Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2025 13:56:05 +0100 From: Wolfram Sang To: Jarkko Nikula Cc: linux-i3c@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org, Alexandre Belloni Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] i3c: mipi-i3c-hci: use parity8 helper instead of open coding it Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: Wolfram Sang , Jarkko Nikula , linux-i3c@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org, Alexandre Belloni References: <20250107090204.6593-1-wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com> <20250107090204.6593-5-wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com> <3117d2d9-260a-4e02-8c22-4e078e01ddd5@linux.intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="r4mfttq9c2W/MPk0" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3117d2d9-260a-4e02-8c22-4e078e01ddd5@linux.intel.com> --r4mfttq9c2W/MPk0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline > Stable rules allow also cherry picking additional patches. To me picking > patch 1 and 4 sounds better than an intermediate fix since bug has been here > from the beginning. IMHO not so urgent than a regression. Even then, doesn't that mean that the series needs to be applied upstream first before it can go to stable? How to describe the dependency commit id otherwise? Either Alexandre adds this when applying, or some interested party ;) sends a backport request to stable. Or am I missing something? > Looks like we have been lucky. First dynamic address is 0x9 and previous > algorithm gets the same calculated dat_w0 value for at least for the > addresses 0x9 and 0xa. Makes sense. Still not too many I3C devices out there... --r4mfttq9c2W/MPk0 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEOZGx6rniZ1Gk92RdFA3kzBSgKbYFAmd+deIACgkQFA3kzBSg Kbam6xAAqV3ZgKWTA4vjFGilGyaNc2uygT4v8V3gvnfv4Omak2REUNovVrVXTIqu sBP5M+swh1qCYDK4r+xGfw5X/D6luuddODEhbqyBjxY4qSRe9CILwpC78Yu7AGIX OXsvOlc5jBfqMXgXbbsfJeBfI9eKPycVNuP4OnlSsog+1Z1NaPiFDCQrJtWRrqA/ oDCbPpLgN5juTt92JDQbjnCiLRWGMLj7rUdvN89RHpcVDJw5XRKfsZr8VyGra4Ww pl1F3WW4H+n/C3BDSc9Ursb0XLK33ELvsmW7EvEerMO5rzkxCDWh6r1HzkL2QJ+h Dhr1+RCGWDevVw5hBLzXsJlGrzrHTzhyE0ZKYxtez4+2oI96lHGoncKoqJxiyBfF eAqQRLi6Ymt/3UBWFgruWLy+Jw+oib7rrD+hqXrrGnnJaygGqLQxaqdoMJtiF3rc x4n2HV1+UwbMVldjlLj95Om5GrR82Y+IwbWebe4WsXdZHITkgW1RsRL91MjX8Pqo FAJSfzlACCxNA1L3TV7iSAWDmwUEMGraj9xfBqDGt4eRCocClTqqimwqZ0Hiz66a WaZYL4gJ836CpgGWthl6BDvE+cEQjvDdY93bs9UoZkQ+8g/lIhkQHNjj4TlNTE9i BvNnncmFWn21BbtalC+ZXRBbhcITBSa90E0UIkP8U7/5/Sx1VBU= =VaP9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --r4mfttq9c2W/MPk0--