Re: [PATCH 6.6 v2 3/4] riscv: dts: starfive: Add the nodes and pins of I2Srx/I2Stx0/I2Stx1

[Conor Dooley]

On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 07:19:05PM +0800, WangYuli wrote:
> On 2024/9/12 18:40, Conor Dooley wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 10:23:09AM +0000, Hal Feng wrote:
> > > > On 12.09.24 10:55, WangYuli wrote:
> > > > +	i2srx_pins: i2srx-0 {
> > > > +		clk-sd-pins {
> > > > +			pinmux = <GPIOMUX(38, GPOUT_LOW,
> > > > +					      GPOEN_DISABLE,
> > > > +					      GPI_SYS_I2SRX_BCLK)>,
> > > > +				 <GPIOMUX(63, GPOUT_LOW,
> > > > +					      GPOEN_DISABLE,
> > > > +					      GPI_SYS_I2SRX_LRCK)>,
> > > > +				 <GPIOMUX(38, GPOUT_LOW,
> > > > +					      GPOEN_DISABLE,
> > > > +					      GPI_SYS_I2STX1_BCLK)>,
> > > > +				 <GPIOMUX(63, GPOUT_LOW,
> > > > +					      GPOEN_DISABLE,
> > > > +					      GPI_SYS_I2STX1_LRCK)>,
> > > > +				 <GPIOMUX(61, GPOUT_LOW,
> > > > +					      GPOEN_DISABLE,
> > > > +					      GPI_SYS_I2SRX_SDIN0)>;
> > > > +			input-enable;
> > > > +		};
> > > > +	};
> > > > +
> > > > +	i2stx1_pins: i2stx1-0 {
> > > > +		sd-pins {
> > > > +			pinmux = <GPIOMUX(44, GPOUT_SYS_I2STX1_SDO0,
> > > > +					      GPOEN_ENABLE,
> > > > +					      GPI_NONE)>;
> > > > +			bias-disable;
> > > > +			input-disable;
> > > > +		};
> > > > +	};
> > > > +
> > > > +	mclk_ext_pins: mclk-ext-0 {
> > > > +		mclk-ext-pins {
> > > > +			pinmux = <GPIOMUX(4, GPOUT_LOW,
> > > > +					     GPOEN_DISABLE,
> > > > +					     GPI_SYS_MCLK_EXT)>;
> > > > +			input-enable;
> > > > +		};
> > > > +	};
> > > > +
> > > >   	mmc0_pins: mmc0-0 {
> > > >   		 rst-pins {
> > > >   			pinmux = <GPIOMUX(62, GPOUT_SYS_SDIO0_RST,
> > > The above changes had been reverted in commit e0503d47e93d in the mainline.
> > > Is it appropriate to merge this patch into the stable branch?
> > > 
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240415125033.86909-1-hannah.peuckmann@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > Hah, I had gone looking this morning because I had a hunch that there
> > was some missing fix this series didn't, but couldn't remember what it
> > was. I completely forgot that some of this was non-present overlay
> > related stuff that had had to be reverted.
> > 
> > So yes, if it had to be reverted in mainline, it shouldn't get
> > backported. Thanks for spotting that Hal.
> > 
> Got it. Thanks for pointing that out, and sorry for bothering you all...

Patch 1 still seems like it could be backported though, even if these
pwmdac patches are not suitble?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature