* WTF: patch "[PATCH] iio: adc: TI_AM335X_ADC should depend on HAS_DMA" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 4.9-stable tree? @ 2017-01-09 8:25 gregkh 2017-01-09 9:03 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: gregkh @ 2017-01-09 8:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: geert, jic23, stable; +Cc: stable The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 4.9-stable tree. I fail to see how this patch meets the stable kernel rules as found at Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt. I could be totally wrong, and if so, please respond to <stable@vger.kernel.org> and let me know why this patch should be applied. Otherwise, it is now dropped from my patch queues, never to be seen again. thanks, greg k-h ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------ >From b1448ea9cd95868e3e91313b643818d18917b382 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 13:30:24 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] iio: adc: TI_AM335X_ADC should depend on HAS_DMA If NO_DMA=y: ERROR: "bad_dma_ops" [drivers/iio/adc/ti_am335x_adc.ko] undefined! Add a dependency on HAS_DMA to fix this. Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Fixes: f438b9da (" drivers: iio: ti_am335x_adc: add dma support") Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/Kconfig b/drivers/iio/adc/Kconfig index 38bc319904c4..9c8b558ba19e 100644 --- a/drivers/iio/adc/Kconfig +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/Kconfig @@ -561,7 +561,7 @@ config TI_ADS8688 config TI_AM335X_ADC tristate "TI's AM335X ADC driver" - depends on MFD_TI_AM335X_TSCADC + depends on MFD_TI_AM335X_TSCADC && HAS_DMA select IIO_BUFFER select IIO_KFIFO_BUF help ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: WTF: patch "[PATCH] iio: adc: TI_AM335X_ADC should depend on HAS_DMA" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 4.9-stable tree? 2017-01-09 8:25 WTF: patch "[PATCH] iio: adc: TI_AM335X_ADC should depend on HAS_DMA" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 4.9-stable tree? gregkh @ 2017-01-09 9:03 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2017-01-09 9:40 ` Greg KH 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2017-01-09 9:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Greg KH; +Cc: Jonathan Cameron, stable Hi Greg, On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 9:25 AM, <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 4.9-stable tree. > > I fail to see how this patch meets the stable kernel rules as found at > Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt. s@stable_kernel_rules.txt@process/stable-kernel-rules.rst@g Time to update the scripts? ;-) > I could be totally wrong, and if so, please respond to > <stable@vger.kernel.org> and let me know why this patch should be > applied. Otherwise, it is now dropped from my patch queues, never to be > seen again. I don't mind if you drop it, but it does fix a (obscure) build error. > ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------ > > From b1448ea9cd95868e3e91313b643818d18917b382 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> > Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 13:30:24 +0100 > Subject: [PATCH] iio: adc: TI_AM335X_ADC should depend on HAS_DMA > > If NO_DMA=y: > > ERROR: "bad_dma_ops" [drivers/iio/adc/ti_am335x_adc.ko] undefined! Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: WTF: patch "[PATCH] iio: adc: TI_AM335X_ADC should depend on HAS_DMA" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 4.9-stable tree? 2017-01-09 9:03 ` Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2017-01-09 9:40 ` Greg KH 2017-01-09 9:45 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Greg KH @ 2017-01-09 9:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Geert Uytterhoeven; +Cc: Jonathan Cameron, stable On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 10:03:31AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Greg, > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 9:25 AM, <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 4.9-stable tree. > > > > I fail to see how this patch meets the stable kernel rules as found at > > Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt. > > s@stable_kernel_rules.txt@process/stable-kernel-rules.rst@g > > Time to update the scripts? ;-) Ah, yes, thanks, will go do that now. > > I could be totally wrong, and if so, please respond to > > <stable@vger.kernel.org> and let me know why this patch should be > > applied. Otherwise, it is now dropped from my patch queues, never to be > > seen again. > > I don't mind if you drop it, but it does fix a (obscure) build error. It does on 4.9? Not according to the patch itself: Fixes: f438b9da (" drivers: iio: ti_am335x_adc: add dma support") $ git describe --contains f438b9da v4.10-rc1~148^2~367^2~6^2 So why should this be applied to 4.9? thanks, greg k-h ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: WTF: patch "[PATCH] iio: adc: TI_AM335X_ADC should depend on HAS_DMA" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 4.9-stable tree? 2017-01-09 9:40 ` Greg KH @ 2017-01-09 9:45 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2017-01-10 21:08 ` Jonathan Cameron 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2017-01-09 9:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Greg KH; +Cc: Jonathan Cameron, stable Hi Greg, On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 10:03:31AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 9:25 AM, <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> > The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 4.9-stable tree. >> > >> > I fail to see how this patch meets the stable kernel rules as found at >> > Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt. >> >> s@stable_kernel_rules.txt@process/stable-kernel-rules.rst@g >> >> Time to update the scripts? ;-) > > Ah, yes, thanks, will go do that now. > >> > I could be totally wrong, and if so, please respond to >> > <stable@vger.kernel.org> and let me know why this patch should be >> > applied. Otherwise, it is now dropped from my patch queues, never to be >> > seen again. >> >> I don't mind if you drop it, but it does fix a (obscure) build error. > > It does on 4.9? Not according to the patch itself: > > Fixes: f438b9da (" drivers: iio: ti_am335x_adc: add dma support") > > $ git describe --contains f438b9da > v4.10-rc1~148^2~367^2~6^2 > > So why should this be applied to 4.9? Right (disclaimer: I didn't add a fixes tag), you confused me with the stable kernel rules question. So not on v4.9, until someone tries to sneak f438b9da into LTSI ;-) Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: WTF: patch "[PATCH] iio: adc: TI_AM335X_ADC should depend on HAS_DMA" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 4.9-stable tree? 2017-01-09 9:45 ` Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2017-01-10 21:08 ` Jonathan Cameron 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Jonathan Cameron @ 2017-01-10 21:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Geert Uytterhoeven, Greg KH; +Cc: Jonathan Cameron, stable On 09/01/17 09:45, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Greg, > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 10:03:31AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 9:25 AM, <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >>>> The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 4.9-stable tree. >>>> >>>> I fail to see how this patch meets the stable kernel rules as found at >>>> Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt. >>> >>> s@stable_kernel_rules.txt@process/stable-kernel-rules.rst@g >>> >>> Time to update the scripts? ;-) >> >> Ah, yes, thanks, will go do that now. >> >>>> I could be totally wrong, and if so, please respond to >>>> <stable@vger.kernel.org> and let me know why this patch should be >>>> applied. Otherwise, it is now dropped from my patch queues, never to be >>>> seen again. >>> >>> I don't mind if you drop it, but it does fix a (obscure) build error. >> >> It does on 4.9? Not according to the patch itself: >> >> Fixes: f438b9da (" drivers: iio: ti_am335x_adc: add dma support") >> >> $ git describe --contains f438b9da >> v4.10-rc1~148^2~367^2~6^2 >> >> So why should this be applied to 4.9? > > Right (disclaimer: I didn't add a fixes tag), you confused me with the stable > kernel rules question. Sorry, my bad. I'd lost track of when the change went in and thought for some reason it was longer ago than that and lazily didn't check. > > So not on v4.9, until someone tries to sneak f438b9da into LTSI ;-) > > Gr{oetje,eeting}s, > > Geert > > -- > Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org > > In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But > when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. > -- Linus Torvalds > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-01-10 21:08 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2017-01-09 8:25 WTF: patch "[PATCH] iio: adc: TI_AM335X_ADC should depend on HAS_DMA" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 4.9-stable tree? gregkh 2017-01-09 9:03 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2017-01-09 9:40 ` Greg KH 2017-01-09 9:45 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2017-01-10 21:08 ` Jonathan Cameron
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).