Re: [PATCH 5.10 000/459] 5.10.231-rc1 review

[Dominique Martinet]

Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote on Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 03:55:38PM +0100:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.231 release.
> There are 459 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 Sat, 14 Dec 2024 14:41:35 +0000.
> Anything received after that time might be too late.
> 
> The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
> 	https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v5.x/stable-review/patch-5.10.231-rc1.gz
> or in the git tree and branch at:
> 	git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-5.10.y
> and the diffstat can be found below.

Tested 2146a7485c27 ("Linux 5.10.231-rc1") on:
- arm i.MX6ULL (Armadillo 640)
- arm64 i.MX8MP (Armadillo G4)

No obvious regression in dmesg or basic tests:
Tested-by: Dominique Martinet <dominique.martinet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>



> Shengjiu Wang <shengjiu.wang@xxxxxxx>
>     ASoC: fsl_micfil: fix the naming style for mask definition
>
> Shengjiu Wang <shengjiu.wang@xxxxxxx>
>     ASoC: fsl_micfil: fix regmap_write_bits usage
> 
> Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>     ASoC: fsl_micfil: use GENMASK to define register bit fields
> 
> Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>     ASoC: fsl_micfil: do not define SHIFT/MASK for single bits
> 
> Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>     ASoC: fsl_micfil: Drop unnecessary register read

Just a note on these, our version (from nxp) of this was full of
conflicts and too much effort to merge for something I cannot test
easily, so I squashed out this part and re-cherry-picked just commits
c808e277bcdf ("ASoC: fsl_micfil: Drop unnecessary register read")
and 06df673d2023 ("ASoC: fsl_micfil: fix regmap_write_bits usage")

The other three commits are marked as a stable dep of 06df673d2023 but
it really is trivial to backport and not worth the risk to me; if you'd
like me to send the minimal backport I used I'll be happy to.

(but, as far as I'm concerned I'm fine as is as well and consider this
closed; just reporting I didn't test this 100% as is. Not that my
automated test actually exercises the micfil code anyway...)


Thanks,
-- 
Dominique Martinet