From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757117AbbGQMN5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jul 2015 08:13:57 -0400 Received: from bear.ext.ti.com ([192.94.94.41]:36409 "EHLO bear.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756933AbbGQMNz (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jul 2015 08:13:55 -0400 Message-ID: <55A8F2AF.6080701@ti.com> Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 08:18:55 -0400 From: Vitaly Andrianov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sekhar Nori , Linus Walleij , Kevin Hilman CC: Alexandre Courbot , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio/davinci: add interrupt support for GPIOs 16-31 References: <1434647449-5393-1-git-send-email-vitalya@ti.com> <55A77392.30400@ti.com> <55A7ECE1.2060704@ti.com> <55A88C53.7090408@ti.com> In-Reply-To: <55A88C53.7090408@ti.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 07/17/2015 01:02 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote: > On Thursday 16 July 2015 11:11 PM, Vitaly Andrianov wrote: >> >> >> On 07/16/2015 05:04 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote: >>> On Tuesday 14 July 2015 07:31 PM, Linus Walleij wrote: >>>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 7:10 PM, Vitaly Andrianov >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Interrupts for GPIOs 16 through 31 are enabled by bit 1 in the >>>>> "binten" register (offset 8). Previous versions of GPIO only >>>>> used bit 0, which enables GPIO 0-15 interrupts. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Reece Pollack >>>>> Signed-off-by: Vitaly Andrianov >>>> >>>> Sekhar/Kevin: OK with this? We don't have a maintainer >>>> listed for davinci GPIO so I assume it's you guys... >>> >>> Hi Linus, I had reviewed this patch and there was a v2 send based on my >>> comments on July 03. >>> >>>> Should this be tagged for stable? >>> >>> Not sure about that. It affects Keystone devices. Vitaly? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Sekhar >>> >> We used this patch for a long time. So, I guess it is stable. > > You misunderstood. Should this patch be marked for backporting to older > kernels because it fixes a critical issue on devices otherwise working > in that kernel? See Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt > > Thanks, > Sekhar > Sorry. As I understand from the stable_kernel_rules.txt this patch _IS_ _NOT_ for "-stable" Thanks, Vitaly