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 8F383316915 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2025 11:58:33 +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=1764071914; cv=none; b=DXTLceZDQcJndT5Y2XhDo4VoFVsZomTbt2s+GWsujM9U4RVrrVKi3sgBJpJjadtvb6hbS8RT53aRdukCb7DddQ2cFHcqZYnyCmXv2JYprfYYnm9D0xKYGHOh4mFfpzKOC0WiPb/8nn3DB0GFgqO7lG453bb9pFE77rzHDFHUPEA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1764071914; c=relaxed/simple; bh=FLmPTedDCUFAaq/4C15Pj5i/0Ic03NuUOmY47LDTeRo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=F9KF71WxvN92QPy0O/5Nru+egAvf+bRu7EizFyK5tERXQGGw0hxp3Dpa/6FZn1aguxVHu2NM4r/wTlS1FgOTixrfQ9gqHYre6PrAoh+mZKpPXfb63mV154ImFEtO3a3TVfVN2cI4/XmG+9wc6viqv7WUTsfxuYCS3gfu5FSF1UY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b=kc/lCIjA; 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="kc/lCIjA" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C5D1AC116B1; Tue, 25 Nov 2025 11:58:32 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1764071913; bh=FLmPTedDCUFAaq/4C15Pj5i/0Ic03NuUOmY47LDTeRo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=kc/lCIjA5AUZ6RI768yXHxp+J9bm8pCWmbJeoZKbPr2ifBJzgh/H+5WUyrB+hk60B aKT5gujUF7VFfdZrBbdizV1JQr+0X824otui7DfVd9/O2BsdzhEBDhDqh2xCDMSKCr xqWg7ieIUoO0+rC4TWkN15Wv45nfjctv/QAptiM0= Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2025 12:58:30 +0100 From: Greg KH To: Charles Keepax Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski , stable@vger.kernel.org, linus.walleij@linaro.org, patches@opensource.cirrus.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "gpio: swnode: don't use the swnode's name as the key for GPIO lookup" Message-ID: <2025112505-unlovable-crease-cfe2@gregkh> References: <20251125102924.3612459-1-ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com> <2025112531-glance-majorette-40b0@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=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:48:02AM +0000, Charles Keepax wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 12:43:16PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:31:56AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:29 AM Charles Keepax > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > This reverts commit 25decf0469d4c91d90aa2e28d996aed276bfc622. > > > > > > > > This software node change doesn't actually fix any current issues > > > > with the kernel, it is an improvement to the lookup process rather > > > > than fixing a live bug. It also causes a couple of regressions with > > > > shipping laptops, which relied on the label based lookup. > > > > > > > > There is a fix for the regressions in mainline, the first 5 patches > > > > of [1]. However, those patches are fairly substantial changes and > > > > given the patch causing the regression doesn't actually fix a bug > > > > it seems better to just revert it in stable. > > > > > > > > CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 6.12, 6.17 > > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-sound/20251120-reset-gpios-swnodes-v7-0-a100493a0f4b@linaro.org/ [1] > > > > Closes: https://github.com/thesofproject/linux/issues/5599 > > > > Closes: https://github.com/thesofproject/linux/issues/5603 > > > > Acked-by: Bartosz Golaszewski > > > > Signed-off-by: Charles Keepax > > > > --- > > > > > > > > I wasn't exactly sure of the proceedure for reverting a patch that was > > > > cherry-picked to stable, so apologies if I have made any mistakes here > > > > but happy to update if necessary. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I'd like to stress the fact that this MUST NOT be reverted in > > > mainline, only in v6.12 and v6.17 stable branches. > > > > But why? Why not take the upstream changes instead? We would much > > rather do that as it reduces the divergance. 5 patches is trivial for > > us to take. > > My thinking was that they are a bit invasive for backports, as > noted in the commit message. But if that is the preferred option > I can do a series with those instead? I'd prefer to take what is upstream, it's simpler over the long term to do so. thanks, greg k-h