Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200622100520.143622-1-darekm@google.com> <ca796f62-7d1f-3391-0373-ec9b98b1c47a@xs4all.nl>
 <CALFZZQHuqx+H=7pd9t=XYWqKppMzze0XsXwRVA5kLZfwWYLmKQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABXOdTfyzKtT4jWLhBwV5ecG1Bc2g88vUfKB6OspmF0mTafxpA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABXOdTfyzKtT4jWLhBwV5ecG1Bc2g88vUfKB6OspmF0mTafxpA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Dariusz Marcinkiewicz <darekm@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 24 Jun 2020 18:39:25 +0200
Message-ID: <CALFZZQHsDV9XPyeJ4_NJ=FHF3LSk4j0aMWF3fbvDEdUrs_0O1g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] media: cros-ec-cec: do not bail on
 device_init_wakeup failure
To:     Guenter Roeck <groeck@google.com>
Cc:     Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@xs4all.nl>,
        linux-media@vger.kernel.org,
        Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
        Benson Leung <bleung@chromium.org>,
        Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@collabora.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@chromium.org>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
        Sebastian Reichel <sre@kernel.org>,
        Dariusz Marcinkiewicz <darekm@chromium.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi.

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 4:45 PM Guenter Roeck <groeck@google.com> wrote:

> > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 12:23 PM Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Dariusz Marcinkiewicz <darekm@google.com>
> > >
> > > This can be CCed to stable, I guess?
> > >
> >
> > That issue is not a recent regression but has been in there since the
> > very beginning.  So it might be argued that is it not severe enough to
> > warrant cc'ing stable. Happy to do that anyways if you think
> > otherwise.
> >
>
> Confused. Internally you would like to have this patch applied to
> chromeos-4.4. Here you suggest that it may not be important enough to
> apply to stable releases. Which one is it ?
>

It affects us on 4.4, hence the backport to 4.4. I have nothing
against this being merged into the mainline stable. I simply wasn't
sure if that should be considered severe enough to be backported
there. As said before, I am happy to CC this to stable.

Thank you and best regards.

(apologies for double post again)