From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 71EB418B47D for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2025 12:50:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740401412; cv=none; b=pYwLNr9G1m93ingorPlhmNnqFdV1vomzsJtFXP1ZiqPHJoqjY6xXt74hVcgg0TRZhbTWJPcSJsgr2etqCjn6HYrEYb62eySMHWuFbGjMBRYx6ttJLefqf/yNLFUmohJugBO24SP9W1gK2wLfQ80TWqs5F9hPL1AZ/aQA1X9pRLI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740401412; c=relaxed/simple; bh=x/d7h7F2f9ES2/GHWrAvtcp2vyGtRoUd7cwQd05bpUE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Z+2Z0ZkFuQgx3HuetqJHcwRSt94g+3y12JaW7qHhaUPl66K87Dc/G0gIt7LCXMYiNBy8yXkI9kxR1dCot1/4oXpcO0gMwc10DBu45ZpNmK36wPKf1cPDxFiUPbciD9/qVA94Qf6BcvrDjiHs6v2RssZro/4Lf6a42hapkeq172c= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b=pHEDXCbN; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b="pHEDXCbN" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9790BC4CED6; Mon, 24 Feb 2025 12:50:11 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1740401412; bh=x/d7h7F2f9ES2/GHWrAvtcp2vyGtRoUd7cwQd05bpUE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=pHEDXCbN4zBHpBCA4vf2/iocyNfxnmPIgrjEv/wM+tVK/QfbPUazTxCJ6SZ+5sM/e SEjUWgHOtpNedzm+Q7axr0Jr3svTSWSCWQIiKyxKb9UDuSs/Gj9C+4OQ51eLQeq5Ug 692kVltRiIJGE9pC0WAI/ESoOUZATRBn2TwJl3Sc= Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 13:50:09 +0100 From: Greg KH To: Quentin Schulz Cc: lukasz.czechowski@thaumatec.com, heiko@sntech.de, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] arm64: dts: rockchip: Disable DMA for uart5 on px30-ringneck" failed to apply to 6.6-stable tree Message-ID: <2025022438-frail-cache-64c7@gregkh> References: <2025022438-automated-recycled-cc12@gregkh> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 11:46:55AM +0100, Quentin Schulz wrote: > Hi Greg, Heiko, Lukasz, > > On 2/24/25 11:27 AM, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote: > > > > The patch below does not apply to the 6.6-stable tree. > > If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm > > tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit > > id to . > > > > To reproduce the conflict and resubmit, you may use the following commands: > > > > git fetch https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/ linux-6.6.y > > git checkout FETCH_HEAD > > git cherry-pick -x 5ae4dca718eacd0a56173a687a3736eb7e627c77 > > # > > git commit -s > > git send-email --to '' --in-reply-to '2025022438-automated-recycled-cc12@gregkh' --subject-prefix 'PATCH 6.6.y' HEAD^.. > > > > Possible dependencies: > > > > Commit 5ae4dca718ea ("arm64: dts: rockchip: Disable DMA for uart5 on > px30-ringneck") depends on 4eee627ea593 ("arm64: dts: rockchip: Move uart5 > pin configuration to px30 ringneck SoM"), both slated for stable, so I'm > surprised this patch is the one conflicting and not the first one (because > it does conflict too!). > > An option for clean application is to backport 5963d97aa780 ("arm64: dts: > rockchip: add rs485 support on uart5 of px30-ringneck-haikou") to 6.6 first, > and then 4eee627ea593 followed by 5ae4dca718ea. > > Another option is to resolve the conflict for 4eee627ea593 which is simply > about the git context (rts-gpios can be removed if 5963d97aa780 isn't > backported). > > @Heiko, @Greg, a preference on one of those two options (or a third one > maybe?)? I personally would prefer the additional backport so we avoid other > conflicts in the future (I already foresee one with a patch I posted (not > merged yet!) last week). I don't care, it's your call, just submit a patch series of the backported patches you want to see applied and I'll gladly take them. thanks, greg k-h