Patch "ASoC: sunxi: Add bindings for sun8i to SPDIF" has been added to the 4.9-stable tree

Patch "ASoC: sunxi: Add bindings for sun8i to SPDIF" has been added to the 4.9-stable tree

[gregkh]

This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled

    ASoC: sunxi: Add bindings for sun8i to SPDIF

to the 4.9-stable tree which can be found at:
    http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary

The filename of the patch is:
     asoc-sunxi-add-bindings-for-sun8i-to-spdif.patch
and it can be found in the queue-4.9 subdirectory.

If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree,
please let <stable@vger.kernel.org> know about it.


>From foo@baz Thu Nov  9 09:48:01 CET 2017
From: Marcus Cooper <codekipper@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 20:52:57 +0100
Subject: ASoC: sunxi: Add bindings for sun8i to SPDIF

From: Marcus Cooper <codekipper@gmail.com>


[ Upstream commit cb5c978f9a56c459d5f13901efcfe44b97c4182d ]

The H3 SoC uses the same SPDIF block as found in earlier SoCs, but the
transmit fifo is at a different address.

Signed-off-by: Marcus Cooper <codekipper@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>
Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@verizon.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/sunxi,sun4i-spdif.txt |    1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/sunxi,sun4i-spdif.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/sunxi,sun4i-spdif.txt
@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ Required properties:
   - compatible		: should be one of the following:
     - "allwinner,sun4i-a10-spdif": for the Allwinner A10 SoC
     - "allwinner,sun6i-a31-spdif": for the Allwinner A31 SoC
+    - "allwinner,sun8i-h3-spdif": for the Allwinner H3 SoC
 
   - reg			: Offset and length of the register set for the device.
 


Patches currently in stable-queue which might be from codekipper@gmail.com are

queue-4.9/asoc-sunxi-add-bindings-for-sun8i-to-spdif.patch

Re: Patch "ASoC: sunxi: Add bindings for sun8i to SPDIF" has been added to the 4.9-stable tree

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 559 bytes --]

On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 10:09:10AM +0100, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:

> This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
> 
>     ASoC: sunxi: Add bindings for sun8i to SPDIF

> The H3 SoC uses the same SPDIF block as found in earlier SoCs, but the
> transmit fifo is at a different address.

This doesn't seem like a good idea - note how the changelog says that
the transmit FIFO is at a different address, I'd expect this means that
people won't be able to use the new compatible without a corresponding
code change.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: Patch "ASoC: sunxi: Add bindings for sun8i to SPDIF" has been added to the 4.9-stable tree

[Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin)]

On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 11:07:44AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
>On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 10:09:10AM +0100, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
>
>> This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
>>
>>     ASoC: sunxi: Add bindings for sun8i to SPDIF
>
>> The H3 SoC uses the same SPDIF block as found in earlier SoCs, but the
>> transmit fifo is at a different address.
>
>This doesn't seem like a good idea - note how the changelog says that
>the transmit FIFO is at a different address, I'd expect this means that
>people won't be able to use the new compatible without a corresponding
>code change.

Interesting. I keep trying to automate DT patch selection to deal with
issues as this, but it seems like there is always something...

I agree with Mark. I think it would make sense to pick 1bd92af877 as
well to deal with this issue.

-- 

Thanks,
Sasha

Re: Patch "ASoC: sunxi: Add bindings for sun8i to SPDIF" has been added to the 4.9-stable tree

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 726 bytes --]

On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 04:09:12PM +0000, Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin) wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 11:07:44AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:

> >This doesn't seem like a good idea - note how the changelog says that
> >the transmit FIFO is at a different address, I'd expect this means that
> >people won't be able to use the new compatible without a corresponding
> >code change.

> Interesting. I keep trying to automate DT patch selection to deal with
> issues as this, but it seems like there is always something...

> I agree with Mark. I think it would make sense to pick 1bd92af877 as
> well to deal with this issue.

Yeah, if they both go in together it's fine by me (though it's a little
more than just a device ID).

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: Patch "ASoC: sunxi: Add bindings for sun8i to SPDIF" has been added to the 4.9-stable tree

[Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin)]

On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 04:17:33PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
>On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 04:09:12PM +0000, Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin) wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 11:07:44AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
>
>> >This doesn't seem like a good idea - note how the changelog says that
>> >the transmit FIFO is at a different address, I'd expect this means that
>> >people won't be able to use the new compatible without a corresponding
>> >code change.
>
>> Interesting. I keep trying to automate DT patch selection to deal with
>> issues as this, but it seems like there is always something...
>
>> I agree with Mark. I think it would make sense to pick 1bd92af877 as
>> well to deal with this issue.
>
>Yeah, if they both go in together it's fine by me (though it's a little
>more than just a device ID).

It's a quirk too :)

-- 

Thanks,
Sasha

Re: Patch "ASoC: sunxi: Add bindings for sun8i to SPDIF" has been added to the 4.9-stable tree

[gregkh]

On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 04:28:05PM +0000, Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin) wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 04:17:33PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> >On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 04:09:12PM +0000, Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin) wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 11:07:44AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> >
> >> >This doesn't seem like a good idea - note how the changelog says that
> >> >the transmit FIFO is at a different address, I'd expect this means that
> >> >people won't be able to use the new compatible without a corresponding
> >> >code change.
> >
> >> Interesting. I keep trying to automate DT patch selection to deal with
> >> issues as this, but it seems like there is always something...
> >
> >> I agree with Mark. I think it would make sense to pick 1bd92af877 as
> >> well to deal with this issue.
> >
> >Yeah, if they both go in together it's fine by me (though it's a little
> >more than just a device ID).
> 
> It's a quirk too :)

Ok, but 1bd92af877 does not apply cleanly (or even not cleanly) to 4.9,
can someone provide me a backport?

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: Patch "ASoC: sunxi: Add bindings for sun8i to SPDIF" has been added to the 4.9-stable tree

[alexander.levin]

On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 02:34:31PM +0100, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
>On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 04:28:05PM +0000, Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin) wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 04:17:33PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
>> >On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 04:09:12PM +0000, Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin) wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 11:07:44AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
>> >
>> >> >This doesn't seem like a good idea - note how the changelog says that
>> >> >the transmit FIFO is at a different address, I'd expect this means that
>> >> >people won't be able to use the new compatible without a corresponding
>> >> >code change.
>> >
>> >> Interesting. I keep trying to automate DT patch selection to deal with
>> >> issues as this, but it seems like there is always something...
>> >
>> >> I agree with Mark. I think it would make sense to pick 1bd92af877 as
>> >> well to deal with this issue.
>> >
>> >Yeah, if they both go in together it's fine by me (though it's a little
>> >more than just a device ID).
>>
>> It's a quirk too :)
>
>Ok, but 1bd92af877 does not apply cleanly (or even not cleanly) to 4.9,
>can someone provide me a backport?

Sure, please pick the following 3 commits, should be no conflicts then:

 - 96e53c41e1f81c9e9d1ce38d3f28b95668b71dcf - just dead code removal,
avoids conflicts later.
 - 7762681a3ada5fca6017e75ea7f9cdac08fc50b9 - adds a basic quirks
structure.
 - 1bd92af877abfeddcc4b83a35482ed4139591acf - adds support for H2 SoC.

-- 

Thanks,
Sasha

Re: Patch "ASoC: sunxi: Add bindings for sun8i to SPDIF" has been added to the 4.9-stable tree

[gregkh]

On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 04:04:22PM +0000, alexander.levin@verizon.com wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 02:34:31PM +0100, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> >On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 04:28:05PM +0000, Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin) wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 04:17:33PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> >> >On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 04:09:12PM +0000, Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin) wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 11:07:44AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >This doesn't seem like a good idea - note how the changelog says that
> >> >> >the transmit FIFO is at a different address, I'd expect this means that
> >> >> >people won't be able to use the new compatible without a corresponding
> >> >> >code change.
> >> >
> >> >> Interesting. I keep trying to automate DT patch selection to deal with
> >> >> issues as this, but it seems like there is always something...
> >> >
> >> >> I agree with Mark. I think it would make sense to pick 1bd92af877 as
> >> >> well to deal with this issue.
> >> >
> >> >Yeah, if they both go in together it's fine by me (though it's a little
> >> >more than just a device ID).
> >>
> >> It's a quirk too :)
> >
> >Ok, but 1bd92af877 does not apply cleanly (or even not cleanly) to 4.9,
> >can someone provide me a backport?
> 
> Sure, please pick the following 3 commits, should be no conflicts then:
> 
>  - 96e53c41e1f81c9e9d1ce38d3f28b95668b71dcf - just dead code removal,
> avoids conflicts later.

This commit claims the hardware is now supported by a different driver.
Is that support in 4.9?  I couldn't figure it out :(

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: Patch "ASoC: sunxi: Add bindings for sun8i to SPDIF" has been added to the 4.9-stable tree

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 477 bytes --]

On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 05:36:32PM +0100, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 04:04:22PM +0000, alexander.levin@verizon.com wrote:

> >  - 96e53c41e1f81c9e9d1ce38d3f28b95668b71dcf - just dead code removal,
> > avoids conflicts later.

> This commit claims the hardware is now supported by a different driver.
> Is that support in 4.9?  I couldn't figure it out :(

I suspect this isn't worth the effort - it's defintely more than a
simple quirk anyway.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: Patch "ASoC: sunxi: Add bindings for sun8i to SPDIF" has been added to the 4.9-stable tree

[alexander.levin]

On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 04:44:00PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
>On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 05:36:32PM +0100, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 04:04:22PM +0000, alexander.levin@verizon.com wrote:
>
>> >  - 96e53c41e1f81c9e9d1ce38d3f28b95668b71dcf - just dead code removal,
>> > avoids conflicts later.
>
>> This commit claims the hardware is now supported by a different driver.
>> Is that support in 4.9?  I couldn't figure it out :(

>From what I can tell its that way since 3.11.

>I suspect this isn't worth the effort - it's defintely more than a
>simple quirk anyway.

But as Mark points out, this is getting a bit too complicated and
risky.

-- 

Thanks,
Sasha

Re: Patch "ASoC: sunxi: Add bindings for sun8i to SPDIF" has been added to the 4.9-stable tree

[gregkh]

On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 08:24:18PM +0000, alexander.levin@verizon.com wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 04:44:00PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> >On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 05:36:32PM +0100, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> >> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 04:04:22PM +0000, alexander.levin@verizon.com wrote:
> >
> >> >  - 96e53c41e1f81c9e9d1ce38d3f28b95668b71dcf - just dead code removal,
> >> > avoids conflicts later.
> >
> >> This commit claims the hardware is now supported by a different driver.
> >> Is that support in 4.9?  I couldn't figure it out :(
> 
> >From what I can tell its that way since 3.11.
> 
> >I suspect this isn't worth the effort - it's defintely more than a
> >simple quirk anyway.
> 
> But as Mark points out, this is getting a bit too complicated and
> risky.

Ok, now dropped, thanks.

greg k-h