Re: [PATCH v1] serdev: Set fwnode for serdev devices

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 08:47:48PM -0800, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 10:07 AM Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 9:51 AM Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 3/2/2023 9:20 AM, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 9:01 AM Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi Saravana,
> > > >>
> > > >> Am 02.03.23 um 03:35 schrieb Saravana Kannan:
> > > >>> This allow fw_devlink to do dependency tracking for serdev devices.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Reported-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > >>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/03b70a8a-0591-f28b-a567-9d2f736f17e5@xxxxxxxxx/
> > > >>> Cc: Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@xxxxxxxx>
> > > >>> Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >>
> > > >> since this fixes an issue on Raspberry Pi 4, shouldn't this be mentioned
> > > >> in the commit message and providing a Fixes tag?
> > > >
> > > > So RPi 4 was never creating a device links between serdev devices and
> > > > their consumers. The error message was just a new one I added and we
> > > > are noticing and catching the fact that serdev wasn't setting fwnode
> > > > for a device.
> > > >
> > > > I'm also not sure if I can say this commit "Fixes" an issue in serdev
> > > > core because when serdev core was written, fw_devlink wasn't a thing.
> > > > Once I add Fixes, people will start pulling this into stable
> > > > branches/other trees where I don't think this should be pulled into
> > > > older stable branches.
> > >
> > > That is kind of the point of Fixes: tag, is not it? It is appropriate to
> > > list a commit that is not specific to serdev, but maybe a particular
> > > point into the fw_devlink history.
> >
> > I don't want to pick an arbitrary point in fw_devlink as I don't want
> > people picking this up with some old version of fw_devlink and having
> > to support it there.
> >
> > > Given this did not appear to have a
> > > functional impact, we could go without one.
> >
> > This is my take too.
> >
> > Greg/Rob,
> >
> > If you really want a Fixes here, can you please just add it instead of
> > a v2 patch just for that? You can use this commit:
> > 3fb16866b51d driver core: fw_devlink: Make cycle detection more robust
> 
> Rob/Greg,
> 
> Can you pick this up for 6.3-rc2 please?

Will do, my queue is huge at the moment, it might be -rc3...