Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] PCI: xilinx-nwl: Enable the clock through CCF

From: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com>
To: "Krzysztof Wilczyński" <kw@linux.com>,
	"Michal Simek" <michal.simek@xilinx.com>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <monstr@monstr.eu>,
	<git@xilinx.com>, <bharat.kumar.gogada@xilinx.com>,
	Hyun Kwon <hyun.kwon@xilinx.com>,
	"Bjorn Helgaas" <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
	Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
	Ravi Kiran Gummaluri <rgummal@xilinx.com>,
	"Rob Herring" <robh@kernel.org>, Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	<linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] PCI: xilinx-nwl: Enable the clock through CCF
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 12:48:56 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <166b9626-cc4d-ff28-74bc-3e0f455c67e8@xilinx.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210623141920.GB54420@rocinante>

Hi,

On 6/23/21 4:19 PM, Krzysztof Wilczyński wrote:
> Hi Michal,
> 
> [...]
>>> Does it make sense for this change to be back-ported to stable and
>>> long-term kernels?
>>>
>>> I am asking to make sure we do the right thing here, as I can imagine
>>> that older kernels (primarily because some folks could use, for example,
>>> Ubuntu LTS releases for development) might often be used by people who
>>> work with the Xilinx FPGAs and such.
>>
>> I think that make sense to do so. I haven't had a time to take look at
>> it closely but I think on Xilinx ZynqMP zcu102 board this missing patch
>> is causing hang when standard debian 5.10 is used.
> 
> OK.  This definitely would be a good candidate for back-port then - it
> might help quite a few folks to get their device going without this
> troublesome hang you mentioned.
> 
> There are a few options as per:
>   https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
> 
> You can send v3 adding the appropriate tag (see above link or the
> comment below) or once this series (or mainly this patch) reaches Linus'
> tree, then send a message to the stable maintainers mailing list to let
> them know what any why to back-port.
> 
> At this point, I believe that adding the "Cc:" tag which includes the
> "stable@vger.kernel.org" might be the best option as it would involve
> the least amount of work to for Sasha et al.
> 
> What do you think?  Which option would you like to go for?

I have sent v3 with above changes.

Thanks,
Michal