From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pa0-f45.google.com ([209.85.220.45]:32864 "EHLO mail-pa0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750810AbbJFSnC (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Oct 2015 14:43:02 -0400 Received: by pacex6 with SMTP id ex6so217972378pac.0 for ; Tue, 06 Oct 2015 11:43:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <56141620.1010900@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2015 11:42:40 -0700 From: Florian Fainelli MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gregory CLEMENT CC: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux@arm.linux.org.uk, sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com, andrew@lunn.ch, jason@lakedaemon.net, fvdw@fvdw.eu, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.10-3.17] ARM: orion: Fix DSA platform device after mvmdio conversion References: <1443902628-7861-1-git-send-email-f.fainelli@gmail.com> <1443902628-7861-2-git-send-email-f.fainelli@gmail.com> <87wpv09ihm.fsf@free-electrons.com> In-Reply-To: <87wpv09ihm.fsf@free-electrons.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 06/10/15 07:31, Gregory CLEMENT wrote: > Hi Florian, > > On sam., oct. 03 2015, Florian Fainelli wrote: > >> DSA expects the host_dev pointer to be the device structure associated >> with the MDIO bus controller driver. First commit breaking that was >> c3a07134e6aa ("mv643xx_eth: convert to use the Marvell Orion MDIO >> driver"), and then, it got completely under the radar for a while. >> >> Reported-by: Frans van de Wiel" >> Fixes: c3a07134e6aa ("mv643xx_eth: convert to use the Marvell Orion MDIO driver") >> CC: stable@vger.kernel.org >> Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli >> --- >> This patch is for -stable kernels 3.10 to 3.17 (included) > > is it something expected by the stable team? > > I though that the normal flow was to send a fix, applying it on the > current kernel and from this point the stable team try to apply it on > all the relevant kernel. And only when the patch failed to apply you > have to send them a port of the patch for the given version. > > Here you anticipate it, I find it intersting, but I wonder if it fits in > the stable team workflow. Yes, I am not too sure about that, the commit message is wrong anyway, since it references the new, and not the old member name, maybe it is just best to wait for the fix to hit the mainline tree, and when this patch gets scheduled for -stable inclusion, I will re-submit a proper one that applies to 3.10 through 3.17? The other intent of this "double" submission was for people like Frans who reported the issue on a specific kernel, to be able to get it in their inbox so can test that patch. -- Florian