Re: Old commit back-port

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Wed, May 01, 2024 at 02:50:05PM -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
> This commit landed in Linux v5.16, and should have been back-ported
> to stable branches:
>   0ac10b291bee8 arm64: dts: qcom: Fix 'interrupt-map' parent address cells
> 
> It has three hunks, and the commit can be cherry-picked directly
> into the 5.15.y and 5.10.y stable branches.  The first hunk fixes
> a problem first introduced in Linux v5.2, so that hunk (only) should
> be back-ported to v5.4.y.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@linaro.org>
> 
> Is there anything further I need to do?  If you'd prefer I send
> patches, I can do that also (just ask).  Thanks.
> 
> 					-Alex
> 
> 
> Rob's original fix in Linus' tree:
>   0ac10b291bee8 arm64: dts: qcom: Fix 'interrupt-map' parent address cells
> This first landed in v5.16.
> 
> The commit that introduced the problem in the first hunk:
>   b84dfd175c098 arm64: dts: qcom: msm8998: Add PCIe PHY and RC nodes
> This first landed in v5.2, so back-port to v5.4.y, v5.10.y, v5.15.y.
> 
> The commit that introduced the problem in the second hunk:
>   5c538e09cb19b arm64: dts: qcom: sdm845: Add first PCIe controller and PHY
> This first landed in v5.7, so back-port to v5.10.y, v5.15.y
> 
> The commit that introduced the problem in the third hunk:
>   42ad231338c14 arm64: dts: qcom: sdm845: Add second PCIe PHY and controller
> This first landed in v5.7 also
> 
> 
> 

I'm confused, I applied this to 5.10.y and 5.15.y now, but it did not
apply to 5.4.y, and I did not understand the "first-third" type comments
about hunks here, sorry.  Can you just provide a working backport for
5.4.y?

thanks,

greg k-h