From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:54462 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753297AbdKJQgW (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Nov 2017 11:36:22 -0500 Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 17:36:32 +0100 From: "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" To: alexander.levin@verizon.com Cc: Mark Brown , "codekipper@gmail.com" , "maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com" , "stable@vger.kernel.org" , "stable-commits@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: Patch "ASoC: sunxi: Add bindings for sun8i to SPDIF" has been added to the 4.9-stable tree Message-ID: <20171110163632.GA12402@kroah.com> References: <151021855045240@kroah.com> <20171109110744.7b7tefmfglpl5zhg@sirena.co.uk> <20171109160909.km3ez7sradbqg4ey@sasha-lappy> <20171109161733.ejj7m3lfzpakzkze@sirena.co.uk> <20171109162803.ofzpnajnhqnsejhr@sasha-lappy> <20171110133431.GC30012@kroah.com> <20171110160415.2pyvbfna3j55dab7@sasha-lappy> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171110160415.2pyvbfna3j55dab7@sasha-lappy> Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 04:04:22PM +0000, alexander.levin@verizon.com wrote: > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 02:34:31PM +0100, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote: > >On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 04:28:05PM +0000, Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin) wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 04:17:33PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > >> >On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 04:09:12PM +0000, Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin) wrote: > >> >> On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 11:07:44AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > >> > > >> >> >This doesn't seem like a good idea - note how the changelog says that > >> >> >the transmit FIFO is at a different address, I'd expect this means that > >> >> >people won't be able to use the new compatible without a corresponding > >> >> >code change. > >> > > >> >> Interesting. I keep trying to automate DT patch selection to deal with > >> >> issues as this, but it seems like there is always something... > >> > > >> >> I agree with Mark. I think it would make sense to pick 1bd92af877 as > >> >> well to deal with this issue. > >> > > >> >Yeah, if they both go in together it's fine by me (though it's a little > >> >more than just a device ID). > >> > >> It's a quirk too :) > > > >Ok, but 1bd92af877 does not apply cleanly (or even not cleanly) to 4.9, > >can someone provide me a backport? > > Sure, please pick the following 3 commits, should be no conflicts then: > > - 96e53c41e1f81c9e9d1ce38d3f28b95668b71dcf - just dead code removal, > avoids conflicts later. This commit claims the hardware is now supported by a different driver. Is that support in 4.9? I couldn't figure it out :( thanks, greg k-h