Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] ARM: davinci: add missing sentinels to GPIO lookup tables

[Bartosz Golaszewski]

sob., 30 mar 2019 o 14:45 Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx> napisaÅ(a):
>
> Hi,
>
> [This is an automated email]
>
> This commit has been processed because it contains a -stable tag.
> The stable tag indicates that it's relevant for the following trees: all
>
> The bot has tested the following trees: v5.0.5, v4.19.32, v4.14.109, v4.9.166, v4.4.177, v3.18.137.
>
> v5.0.5: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:
>     1703cf5d4fc0 ("ARM: davinci: da830-evm: use gpio lookup entries for usb gpios")
>     c08df69149db ("ARM: davinci: omapl138-hawk: use gpio lookup entries for usb gpios")
>
> v4.19.32: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:
>     1703cf5d4fc0 ("ARM: davinci: da830-evm: use gpio lookup entries for usb gpios")
>     c08df69149db ("ARM: davinci: omapl138-hawk: use gpio lookup entries for usb gpios")
>
> v4.14.109: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:
>     1703cf5d4fc0 ("ARM: davinci: da830-evm: use gpio lookup entries for usb gpios")
>     c08df69149db ("ARM: davinci: omapl138-hawk: use gpio lookup entries for usb gpios")
>     cd2428c368a6 ("i2c: davinci: switch to using gpiod for bus recovery gpios")
>     e53537653791 ("i2c/ARM: davinci: Deep refactoring of I2C recovery")
>
> v4.9.166: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:
>     1703cf5d4fc0 ("ARM: davinci: da830-evm: use gpio lookup entries for usb gpios")
>     1b6fe9798af8 ("ARM: davinci: board-da850-evm: fix WP pin polarity for MMC/SD")
>     51e9f1216322 ("ARM: davinci: board-da830-evm: fix GPIO lookup for MMC/SD")
>     67c6b6ff221f ("ARM: davinci: board-da850-evm: fix GPIO lookup for MMC/SD")
>     b5e1438cf98a ("ARM: davinci: da830-evm: use gpio descriptor for mmc pins")
>     bdf0e8364fd3 ("ARM: davinci: da850-evm: use gpio descriptor for mmc pins")
>     c08df69149db ("ARM: davinci: omapl138-hawk: use gpio lookup entries for usb gpios")
>     cd2428c368a6 ("i2c: davinci: switch to using gpiod for bus recovery gpios")
>     e53537653791 ("i2c/ARM: davinci: Deep refactoring of I2C recovery")
>
> v4.4.177: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:
>     1703cf5d4fc0 ("ARM: davinci: da830-evm: use gpio lookup entries for usb gpios")
>     1b6fe9798af8 ("ARM: davinci: board-da850-evm: fix WP pin polarity for MMC/SD")
>     51e9f1216322 ("ARM: davinci: board-da830-evm: fix GPIO lookup for MMC/SD")
>     67c6b6ff221f ("ARM: davinci: board-da850-evm: fix GPIO lookup for MMC/SD")
>     b5e1438cf98a ("ARM: davinci: da830-evm: use gpio descriptor for mmc pins")
>     bdf0e8364fd3 ("ARM: davinci: da850-evm: use gpio descriptor for mmc pins")
>     c08df69149db ("ARM: davinci: omapl138-hawk: use gpio lookup entries for usb gpios")
>     cd2428c368a6 ("i2c: davinci: switch to using gpiod for bus recovery gpios")
>     e53537653791 ("i2c/ARM: davinci: Deep refactoring of I2C recovery")
>
> v3.18.137: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:
>     1703cf5d4fc0 ("ARM: davinci: da830-evm: use gpio lookup entries for usb gpios")
>     1b6fe9798af8 ("ARM: davinci: board-da850-evm: fix WP pin polarity for MMC/SD")
>     2c6ef04ffaf7 ("i2c: davinci: switch to use platform_get_irq")
>     2e65676f710e ("i2c: davinci: use bus recovery infrastructure")
>     51e9f1216322 ("ARM: davinci: board-da830-evm: fix GPIO lookup for MMC/SD")
>     67c6b6ff221f ("ARM: davinci: board-da850-evm: fix GPIO lookup for MMC/SD")
>     7ef97e9a312c ("i2c: davinci: use ICPFUNC to toggle I2C as gpio for bus recovery")
>     a7ca2bcf2d2e ("ARM: davinci: Use standard logging styles")
>     b5e1438cf98a ("ARM: davinci: da830-evm: use gpio descriptor for mmc pins")
>     bdf0e8364fd3 ("ARM: davinci: da850-evm: use gpio descriptor for mmc pins")
>     c08df69149db ("ARM: davinci: omapl138-hawk: use gpio lookup entries for usb gpios")
>     cd2428c368a6 ("i2c: davinci: switch to using gpiod for bus recovery gpios")
>     e53537653791 ("i2c/ARM: davinci: Deep refactoring of I2C recovery")
>
>
> How should we proceed with this patch?
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Sasha

Different GPIO lookup tables were added at different points and
backporting this patch will be a mess. I guess - since nobody
complained so far about any breakage - we can simply drop the stable
tag and treat it as an improvement of existing code.

Bart