Re: [PATCH 5.10 00/84] 5.10.193-rc1 review

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 07:38:09PM +0200, Manuel Lauss wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx> schrieb am Mi., 30. Aug. 2023, 19:07:
> >
> > + Manuel,
> >
> > On 8/30/23 09:01, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > On 8/30/23 03:52, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 09:42:11AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > >>> On 8/28/23 03:13, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > >>>> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.193 release.
> > >>>> There are 84 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> > >>>> to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> > >>>> let me know.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Responses should be made by Wed, 30 Aug 2023 10:11:30 +0000.
> > >>>> Anything received after that time might be too late.
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> FWIW, commit 619672bf2d04 ("MIPS: Alchemy: fix dbdma2") should be
> > >>> reverted
> > >>> v5.10.y since it doesn't fix anything but breaks the build for
> > >>> affected boards
> > >>> completely.
> > >>>
> > >>> arch/mips/alchemy/common/dbdma.c: In function 'au1xxx_dbdma_put_source':
> > >>> arch/mips/alchemy/common/dbdma.c:632:14: error:
> > >>> 'dma_default_coherent' undeclared
> > >>>
> > >>> There is no 'dma_default_coherent' in v5.10.y.
> > >>
> > >> But that was added in 5.10.185, from back in June.  What changed to
> > >> suddenly cause this to fail now?
> > >>
> > >
> > > Nothing. I started to build this configuration and tracked down the
> > > problem after the build failure was reported by others. Sorry, I didn't
> > > initially realize that this is an old problem.
> >
> > We could back port 6d4e9a8efe3d59f31367d79e970c2f328da139a4 ("driver
> > core: lift dma_default_coherent into common code") but that won't work
> > too well on 4.14 or 4.19. I believe it would be simpler to adjust the
> > branches with this patch, Manuel does that work?
> 
> Please drop this patch from all stable releases. I didn't CC stable
> when I submitted it,
> and have no idea why it ended up there anyway.
> It was intended to fix a problem initially found in 5.18 (I think).

I'm going to revert it now, thanks!

greg k-h