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;
Date:   Wed, 19 Jan 2022 11:28:08 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc:     Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@linux.microsoft.com>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>,
        Lei Wang <lewan@microsoft.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
        Sinan Kaya <okaya@kernel.org>,
        Shiping Ji <shiping.linux@gmail.com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
        Robert Richter <rric@kernel.org>, linux-edac@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] EDAC/dmc520: Don't print an error for each unconfigured
 interrupt line
Message-ID: <YefnuCPwMq5V2lgl@kroah.com>
References: <20220111163800.22362-1-tyhicks@linux.microsoft.com>
 <YeRkGvestiloCAUV@zn.tnic>
 <20220118152816.GA89184@sequoia>
 <Yeb4sK+ZmSHjWPWL@zn.tnic>
 <20220118195401.GB89184@sequoia>
 <YecrXidqecoYI/xg@zn.tnic>
 <YefXQHXNlsxk8yUc@kroah.com>
 <Yefb7zO9p1iPF3Jm@zn.tnic>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Yefb7zO9p1iPF3Jm@zn.tnic>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 10:37:51AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 10:17:52AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > For this specific change, I do NOT think it should be backported at all,
> > mostly for the reason that people are still arguing over the whole
> > platform_get_*_optional() mess that we currently have.  Let's not go and
> > backport anything right now to stable trees until we have all of that
> > sorted out, as it looks like it all might be changing again.  See:
> > 	https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220110195449.12448-1-s.shtylyov@omp.ru
> > for all of the gory details and the 300+ emails written on the topic so
> > far.
> 
> It sounds to me I should not even take this patch upstream yet,
> considering that's still ongoing...

Yes, I would not take that just yet at all.  Let's let the api argument
settle down a bit first.

thanks,

greg k-h