usb: chipidea: tegra: Fix missed ci_hdrc_remove_device()
PATCH 1/1 usb: chipidea: tegra: Fix missed ci_hdrc_remove_device()
The ChipIdea's platform device need to be unregistered on Tegra's driver module removal.
--- drivers/usb/chipidea/ci_hdrc_tegra.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
drivers/usb/chipidea/ci_hdrc_tegra.c +1 -0
@@ -130,6 +130,7 @@ static int tegra_udc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) {struct tegra_udc *udc =platform_get_drvdata (pdev); +ci_hdrc_remove_device (udc->dev);usb_phy_set_suspend (udc->phy,1 );clk_disable_unprepare (udc->clk);
Signature · 1 line
2.20.1
Quoted 3 lines
Fixes dfebb5f43a78827a ("usb: chipidea: Add support for Tegra20/30/114/124")
I suppose you need to apply at stable tree too, right?
Quoted 11 lines
Signed-off-by Dmitry Osipenko <[email protected]>--- drivers/usb/chipidea/ci_hdrc_tegra.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)drivers/usb/chipidea/ci_hdrc_tegra.c +0
-0
drivers/usb/chipidea/ci_hdrc_tegra.c static int tegra_udc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) · line 136
Quoted 7 lines
drivers/usb/chipidea/ci_hdrc_tegra.c +1
-0@@ -130,6 +130,7 @@ static int tegra_udc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) {struct tegra_udc *udc =platform_get_drvdata (pdev); +ci_hdrc_remove_device (udc->dev);usb_phy_set_suspend (udc->phy,1 );clk_disable_unprepare (udc->clk);
Hi Greg, would you still accept the bug-fix for this release (v5.0)? Or I send you later?
Peter
В Mon, 25 Feb 2019 02:27:19 +0000
Peter Chen <[email protected]> пишет:
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Fixes dfebb5f43a78827a ("usb: chipidea: Add support forTegra20/30/114/124")
I suppose you need to apply at stable tree too, right?
It is enough to have the "Fixes" tag to get patch backported into all relevant kernel versions.
Quoted 21 lines
Quoted 11 lines
Signed-off-by Dmitry Osipenko <[email protected]>--- drivers/usb/chipidea/ci_hdrc_tegra.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)drivers/usb/chipidea/ci_hdrc_tegra.c +0
-0drivers/usb/chipidea/ci_hdrc_tegra.c static int tegra_udc_remove(struct · line 136
Quoted 7 lines
drivers/usb/chipidea/ci_hdrc_tegra.c +1
-0@@ -130,6 +130,7 @@ static int tegra_udc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) {struct tegra_udc *udc =platform_get_drvdata (pdev); +ci_hdrc_remove_device (udc->dev);usb_phy_set_suspend (udc->phy,1 );clk_disable_unprepare (udc->clk);Acked-by Peter Chen <[email protected]>
Quoted 2 lines
Hi Greg, would you still accept the bug-fix for this release (v5.0)? Or I send you later?
I just want to point out that the bug existed for a very long time and apparently didn't bother anybody, hence it's not an urgent fix.
Greg Kroah-Hartman
maintainerQuoted 5 lines · Dmitry Osipenko
В Mon, 25 Feb 2019 02:27:19 +0000
Peter Chen <[email protected]> пишет:Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Fixes dfebb5f43a78827a ("usb: chipidea: Add support forTegra20/30/114/124")
I suppose you need to apply at stable tree too, right?
It is enough to have the "Fixes" tag to get patch backported into all relevant kernel versions.
No it is not. My scripts do NOT trigger off of the fixes: tag, please read:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
for how to do this properly.
Quoted 21 lines
Quoted 21 lines
Quoted 11 lines
Signed-off-by Dmitry Osipenko <[email protected]>--- drivers/usb/chipidea/ci_hdrc_tegra.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)drivers/usb/chipidea/ci_hdrc_tegra.c +0
-0drivers/usb/chipidea/ci_hdrc_tegra.c static int tegra_udc_remove(struct · line 136
Quoted 7 lines
drivers/usb/chipidea/ci_hdrc_tegra.c +1
-0@@ -130,6 +130,7 @@ static int tegra_udc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) {struct tegra_udc *udc =platform_get_drvdata (pdev); +ci_hdrc_remove_device (udc->dev);usb_phy_set_suspend (udc->phy,1 );clk_disable_unprepare (udc->clk);Acked-by Peter Chen <[email protected]>
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Hi Greg, would you still accept the bug-fix for this release (v5.0)? Or I send you later?
I can pick it up now, thanks.
greg k-h
26.02.2019 13:56, Greg Kroah-Hartman пишет:
Quoted 12 lines · Dmitry Osipenko
Quoted 11 lines
В Mon, 25 Feb 2019 02:27:19 +0000
Peter Chen <[email protected]> пишет:Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Fixes dfebb5f43a78827a ("usb: chipidea: Add support forTegra20/30/114/124")
I suppose you need to apply at stable tree too, right?
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
It is enough to have the "Fixes" tag to get patch backported into all relevant kernel versions.
No it is not. My scripts do NOT trigger off of the fixes: tag, please read:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
for how to do this properly.
Okay, my bad then. Maybe this is something that could warned by checkpatch.. adding Joe and Andy to the thread.
Greg Kroah-Hartman
maintainerQuoted 16 lines · Dmitry Osipenko
26.02.2019 13:56, Greg Kroah-Hartman пишет:
Quoted 15 lines · Dmitry Osipenko
Quoted 13 lines
В Mon, 25 Feb 2019 02:27:19 +0000
Peter Chen <[email protected]> пишет:Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Fixes dfebb5f43a78827a ("usb: chipidea: Add support forTegra20/30/114/124")
I suppose you need to apply at stable tree too, right?
It is enough to have the "Fixes" tag to get patch backported into all relevant kernel versions.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 4 lines
No it is not. My scripts do NOT trigger off of the fixes: tag, please read:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
for how to do this properly.Okay, my bad then. Maybe this is something that could warned by checkpatch.. adding Joe and Andy to the thread.
Why? It's allowed to put fixes: tags for a patch that does not belong in a stable tree. That happens all the time, and is encouraged. Look at some of the stuff in linux-next now, we have Fixes: for commits that are still in linux-next as well, because we do not rebase our trees. When they all merge into Linus's tree, all is good.
So this is not something that checkpatch needs to do anything about.
thanks,
greg k-h
26.02.2019 17:58, Greg Kroah-Hartman пишет:
Quoted 24 lines · Dmitry Osipenko
Quoted 16 lines
26.02.2019 13:56, Greg Kroah-Hartman пишет:
Quoted 15 lines · Dmitry Osipenko
Quoted 13 lines
В Mon, 25 Feb 2019 02:27:19 +0000
Peter Chen <[email protected]> пишет:Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Fixes dfebb5f43a78827a ("usb: chipidea: Add support forTegra20/30/114/124")
I suppose you need to apply at stable tree too, right?
It is enough to have the "Fixes" tag to get patch backported into all relevant kernel versions.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 4 lines
No it is not. My scripts do NOT trigger off of the fixes: tag, please read:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
for how to do this properly.Okay, my bad then. Maybe this is something that could warned by checkpatch.. adding Joe and Andy to the thread.
Quoted 7 lines
Why? It's allowed to put fixes: tags for a patch that does not belong in a stable tree. That happens all the time, and is encouraged. Look at some of the stuff in linux-next now, we have Fixes: for commits that are still in linux-next as well, because we do not rebase our trees. When they all merge into Linus's tree, all is good.
So this is not something that checkpatch needs to do anything about.
At least that might help in cases like this if maintainer is also oblivious.
I guess it wouldn't hurt at all to add a "green" warning if there is a "Fixes" tag and no "stable", something like this:
WARNING: There is a "Fixes" tag and no "Cc: stable <[email protected]>", please add the stable tag if patch is intended to be backported to stable kernels.
Greg Kroah-Hartman
maintainerQuoted 31 lines · Dmitry Osipenko
26.02.2019 17:58, Greg Kroah-Hartman пишет:
Quoted 30 lines · Dmitry Osipenko
Quoted 16 lines
26.02.2019 13:56, Greg Kroah-Hartman пишет:
Quoted 15 lines · Dmitry Osipenko
Quoted 13 lines
В Mon, 25 Feb 2019 02:27:19 +0000
Peter Chen <[email protected]> пишет:Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Fixes dfebb5f43a78827a ("usb: chipidea: Add support forTegra20/30/114/124")
I suppose you need to apply at stable tree too, right?
It is enough to have the "Fixes" tag to get patch backported into all relevant kernel versions.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 4 lines
No it is not. My scripts do NOT trigger off of the fixes: tag, please read:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
for how to do this properly.Okay, my bad then. Maybe this is something that could warned by checkpatch.. adding Joe and Andy to the thread.
Why? It's allowed to put fixes: tags for a patch that does not belong in a stable tree. That happens all the time, and is encouraged. Look at some of the stuff in linux-next now, we have Fixes: for commits that are still in linux-next as well, because we do not rebase our trees. When they all merge into Linus's tree, all is good.
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 1 line
So this is not something that checkpatch needs to do anything about.
At least that might help in cases like this if maintainer is also oblivious.
If the maintainer is "oblivious", they are not going to be running checkpatch :)
Remember, the "Fixes:" tag is a relatively new thing compared to the cc:
stable tag, which has been a documented requirement for over a decade. Yes, some subsystems do not even do cc: stable, but that is because those subsystem maintainers do not want to do it, or do not care. Again, checkpatch is not going to help them.
checkpatch is not a panacea, people still have to use their brains.
greg k-h
26.02.2019 18:21, Greg Kroah-Hartman пишет:
Quoted 39 lines · Dmitry Osipenko
Quoted 31 lines
26.02.2019 17:58, Greg Kroah-Hartman пишет:
Quoted 30 lines · Dmitry Osipenko
Quoted 16 lines
26.02.2019 13:56, Greg Kroah-Hartman пишет:
Quoted 15 lines · Dmitry Osipenko
Quoted 13 lines
В Mon, 25 Feb 2019 02:27:19 +0000
Peter Chen <[email protected]> пишет:Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Fixes dfebb5f43a78827a ("usb: chipidea: Add support forTegra20/30/114/124")
I suppose you need to apply at stable tree too, right?
It is enough to have the "Fixes" tag to get patch backported into all relevant kernel versions.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 4 lines
No it is not. My scripts do NOT trigger off of the fixes: tag, please read:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
for how to do this properly.Okay, my bad then. Maybe this is something that could warned by checkpatch.. adding Joe and Andy to the thread.
Why? It's allowed to put fixes: tags for a patch that does not belong in a stable tree. That happens all the time, and is encouraged. Look at some of the stuff in linux-next now, we have Fixes: for commits that are still in linux-next as well, because we do not rebase our trees. When they all merge into Linus's tree, all is good.
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 1 line
So this is not something that checkpatch needs to do anything about.
At least that might help in cases like this if maintainer is also oblivious.
If the maintainer is "oblivious", they are not going to be running checkpatch :)
Quoted 7 lines
Remember, the "Fixes:" tag is a relatively new thing compared to the cc:
stable tag, which has been a documented requirement for over a decade. Yes, some subsystems do not even do cc: stable, but that is because those subsystem maintainers do not want to do it, or do not care. Again, checkpatch is not going to help them.checkpatch is not a panacea, people still have to use their brains.
My point that either submitter or maintainers may catch up the problem if at least there are means to report the problem. So I'm still thinking it's not a bad idea to add the warning message, maybe even for the "checkpatch --strict" option only. I'm not insisting that it is something super-necessary and it's up to you guys to decide in the end.