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: <20210108093339.v5.1.I3ad184e3423d8e479bc3e86f5b393abb1704a1d1@changeid>
 <20210108093339.v5.4.I7cf3019783720feb57b958c95c2b684940264cd1@changeid> <CACRpkdZJR142en_=rge5Gp7-MH6SzxjHmkCh_rUx=8j6SVZYSQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACRpkdZJR142en_=rge5Gp7-MH6SzxjHmkCh_rUx=8j6SVZYSQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Date:   Fri, 15 Jan 2021 17:04:49 -0800
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=WG5s81mh+S6Fhyz51nsui=EcsAVJd24uChrszKWHzauQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] pinctrl: qcom: Don't clear pending interrupts when enabling
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Cc:     Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
        Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@codeaurora.org>,
        Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>,
        Maulik Shah <mkshah@codeaurora.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        Srinivas Ramana <sramana@codeaurora.org>,
        MSM <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 4:36 PM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Doug,
>
> this is an impressive patch.
>
> We definitely need to touch base with Bjorn on this, preferably also
> Sboyd.
>
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 6:35 PM Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> > Fixes: 4b7618fdc7e6 ("pinctrl: qcom: Add irq_enable callback for msm gpio")
> > Fixes: 71266d9d3936 ("pinctrl: qcom: Move clearing pending IRQ to .irq_request_resources callback")
> > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
>
> Some mechanics:

I just realized that I addressed everyone's comments but yours.  Doh!


> 1. Does this need to go into stable? Or is current (non-urgent) fine? Or fixes
>    for v5.10? I.e. required destination.

It probably ought to go into stable, but I'll leave it up to you which
version of Linux it lands in.  I don't personally know if anyone is
criticall waiting on this to land upstream.  For Chrome OS we're not
desperate for it because we've already landed a temporary revert of
Maulik's previous patch and the extra clearing of the masked
interrupts isn't causing any really visible problems for us.


> 2. If it does, should patches 1-3 also go into stable? And are they
> prerequisites?

Yeah, the last patch requires the previous ones, so they would all
need to go into stable together.

-Doug