Re: [PATCH 4/6] Revert "nvmem: add new config option"

[Rafał Miłecki]

On 2023-10-21 22:51, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 21, 2023 at 10:31:55PM +0200, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> > On 2023-10-21 19:18, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 11:55:43AM +0100, srinivas.kandagatla@xxxxxxxxxx
> > > wrote:
> > > > From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > This reverts commit 517f14d9cf3533d5ab4fded195ab6f80a92e378f.
> > > >
> > > > It seems that "no_of_node" config option was added to help mtd's case.
> > > >
> > > > DT nodes of MTD partitions (that are also NVMEM devices) may contain
> > > > subnodes that SHOULD NOT be treated as NVMEM fixed cells. To prevent
> > > > NVMEM core code from parsing them "no_of_node" was set to true and
> > > > that
> > > > made for_each_child_of_node() in NVMEM a no-op.
> > > >
> > > > With the introduction of "add_legacy_fixed_of_cells" config option
> > > > things got more explicit. MTD subsystem simply tells NVMEM when to
> > > > look
> > > > for fixed cells and there is no need to hack "of_node" pointer
> > > > anymore.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Why isn't this also marked for stable trees?
> >
> > I think it's explained in commit message but maybe it's not clear
> > enough?
>
> It's not, I just read it again and can't figure it out, sorry.
>
> > This revert (PATCH 4/6) is possible only with the previous PATCH 2/6
> > applied first. In other words "no_of_node" config option can be 
> > dropped
> > only after adding "add_legacy_fixed_of_cells" config option.
>
> Ah, ok, that's not obvious :)
>
> > Since adding "add_legacy_fixed_of_cells" is not a bug/regression fix I
> > didn't mark it for stable and so I couldn't mark revert for stable.
>
> That's fine, but can you please resend this with a better changelog 
> that
> makes it obvious why now we can revert the old patch, otherwise the
> autobot will come along and attempt to backport it to stable as well.

Oops, my bad then. I'll resend tomorrow. Thanks for quick answer!

--
Rafał Miłecki