Hi,That one is fixed, so doesn't count.
Stas Sergeev <stsp@xxxxxxx> writes:
I do not think the problem is to have a revert in -stable, it's moreFor Linus tree I am planning a new DT property to explicitlyAnother problem was reported:No, you will have to fix this in Linus's tree, right? So I'll take the
https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/8/865
So, while the above patch is correct and fixes what
it should, the original patch has more problems to deal
with. Maybe for stable it would be better to just revert
the whole thing?
patch that you get into there when that happens, I don't want to diverge
from what is in that tree.
enable the inband status. I don't see any quick fix suitable for
-stable, and new DT property will likely not be quickly accepted.
If you don't want a revert, then the stable will likely have that
regression for quite long, that's the warning.
having in in Linus tree *first* ;-)
OTOH, the revert will remove the support for my board, so IATM, the priority is more on fixing the regressions the initial patch
won't be able to even test it, which is also not perfect.
caused *for existing boards*. There were at least three boards which got
hit by first regression during 4.1-rc
and a new one on the table nowFor that we don't know the impact yet.
that 4.1 is out.
I understand your reluctance to revert the patch thatI am not reluctant for a revert, I in fact _propose_ the
made mvneta work for your custom board but it's unfair for others that
are hit by the regressions it causes and have to spend time
bisecting/fixing it.
Anyway, if you come w/ a fix, I can commit to test it on the boards IThanks, I'll keep you CCed.
have.