This reverts commit 25decf0469d4c91d90aa2e28d996aed276bfc622.
This software node change doesn't actually fix any current issues with the kernel, it is an improvement to the lookup process rather than fixing a live bug. It also causes a couple of regressions with shipping laptops, which relied on the label based lookup.
There is a fix for the regressions in mainline, the first 5 patches of [1]. However, those patches are fairly substantial changes and given the patch causing the regression doesn't actually fix a bug it seems better to just revert it in stable.
CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 6.12, 6.17 Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-sound/20251120-reset-gpios-swnodes-v7-0-a10049... [1] Closes: https://github.com/thesofproject/linux/issues/5599 Closes: https://github.com/thesofproject/linux/issues/5603 Acked-by: Bartosz Golaszewski bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org Signed-off-by: Charles Keepax ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com ---
I wasn't exactly sure of the proceedure for reverting a patch that was cherry-picked to stable, so apologies if I have made any mistakes here but happy to update if necessary.
Thanks, Charles
drivers/gpio/gpiolib-swnode.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-swnode.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-swnode.c index e3806db1c0e07..f21dbc28cf2c8 100644 --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-swnode.c +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-swnode.c @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ static struct gpio_device *swnode_get_gpio_device(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode) !strcmp(gdev_node->name, GPIOLIB_SWNODE_UNDEFINED_NAME)) return ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
- gdev = gpio_device_find_by_fwnode(fwnode); + gdev = gpio_device_find_by_label(gdev_node->name); return gdev ?: ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER); }
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:29 AM Charles Keepax ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com wrote:
This reverts commit 25decf0469d4c91d90aa2e28d996aed276bfc622.
This software node change doesn't actually fix any current issues with the kernel, it is an improvement to the lookup process rather than fixing a live bug. It also causes a couple of regressions with shipping laptops, which relied on the label based lookup.
There is a fix for the regressions in mainline, the first 5 patches of [1]. However, those patches are fairly substantial changes and given the patch causing the regression doesn't actually fix a bug it seems better to just revert it in stable.
CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 6.12, 6.17 Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-sound/20251120-reset-gpios-swnodes-v7-0-a10049... [1] Closes: https://github.com/thesofproject/linux/issues/5599 Closes: https://github.com/thesofproject/linux/issues/5603 Acked-by: Bartosz Golaszewski bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org Signed-off-by: Charles Keepax ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com
I wasn't exactly sure of the proceedure for reverting a patch that was cherry-picked to stable, so apologies if I have made any mistakes here but happy to update if necessary.
Yes, I'd like to stress the fact that this MUST NOT be reverted in mainline, only in v6.12 and v6.17 stable branches.
Thanks, Bartosz
Thanks, Charles
drivers/gpio/gpiolib-swnode.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-swnode.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-swnode.c index e3806db1c0e07..f21dbc28cf2c8 100644 --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-swnode.c +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-swnode.c @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ static struct gpio_device *swnode_get_gpio_device(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode) !strcmp(gdev_node->name, GPIOLIB_SWNODE_UNDEFINED_NAME)) return ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
gdev = gpio_device_find_by_fwnode(fwnode);
gdev = gpio_device_find_by_label(gdev_node->name); return gdev ?: ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER);}
-- 2.47.3
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:31:56AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:29 AM Charles Keepax ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com wrote:
This reverts commit 25decf0469d4c91d90aa2e28d996aed276bfc622.
This software node change doesn't actually fix any current issues with the kernel, it is an improvement to the lookup process rather than fixing a live bug. It also causes a couple of regressions with shipping laptops, which relied on the label based lookup.
There is a fix for the regressions in mainline, the first 5 patches of [1]. However, those patches are fairly substantial changes and given the patch causing the regression doesn't actually fix a bug it seems better to just revert it in stable.
CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 6.12, 6.17 Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-sound/20251120-reset-gpios-swnodes-v7-0-a10049... [1] Closes: https://github.com/thesofproject/linux/issues/5599 Closes: https://github.com/thesofproject/linux/issues/5603 Acked-by: Bartosz Golaszewski bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org Signed-off-by: Charles Keepax ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com
I wasn't exactly sure of the proceedure for reverting a patch that was cherry-picked to stable, so apologies if I have made any mistakes here but happy to update if necessary.
Yes, I'd like to stress the fact that this MUST NOT be reverted in mainline, only in v6.12 and v6.17 stable branches.
Indeed yes, apologies if that wasn't clear.
Thanks, Charles
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:31:56AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:29 AM Charles Keepax ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com wrote:
This reverts commit 25decf0469d4c91d90aa2e28d996aed276bfc622.
This software node change doesn't actually fix any current issues with the kernel, it is an improvement to the lookup process rather than fixing a live bug. It also causes a couple of regressions with shipping laptops, which relied on the label based lookup.
There is a fix for the regressions in mainline, the first 5 patches of [1]. However, those patches are fairly substantial changes and given the patch causing the regression doesn't actually fix a bug it seems better to just revert it in stable.
CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 6.12, 6.17 Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-sound/20251120-reset-gpios-swnodes-v7-0-a10049... [1] Closes: https://github.com/thesofproject/linux/issues/5599 Closes: https://github.com/thesofproject/linux/issues/5603 Acked-by: Bartosz Golaszewski bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org Signed-off-by: Charles Keepax ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com
I wasn't exactly sure of the proceedure for reverting a patch that was cherry-picked to stable, so apologies if I have made any mistakes here but happy to update if necessary.
Yes, I'd like to stress the fact that this MUST NOT be reverted in mainline, only in v6.12 and v6.17 stable branches.
But why? Why not take the upstream changes instead? We would much rather do that as it reduces the divergance. 5 patches is trivial for us to take.
thanks,
greg k-h
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 12:43:16PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:31:56AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:29 AM Charles Keepax ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com wrote:
This reverts commit 25decf0469d4c91d90aa2e28d996aed276bfc622.
This software node change doesn't actually fix any current issues with the kernel, it is an improvement to the lookup process rather than fixing a live bug. It also causes a couple of regressions with shipping laptops, which relied on the label based lookup.
There is a fix for the regressions in mainline, the first 5 patches of [1]. However, those patches are fairly substantial changes and given the patch causing the regression doesn't actually fix a bug it seems better to just revert it in stable.
CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 6.12, 6.17 Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-sound/20251120-reset-gpios-swnodes-v7-0-a10049... [1] Closes: https://github.com/thesofproject/linux/issues/5599 Closes: https://github.com/thesofproject/linux/issues/5603 Acked-by: Bartosz Golaszewski bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org Signed-off-by: Charles Keepax ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com
I wasn't exactly sure of the proceedure for reverting a patch that was cherry-picked to stable, so apologies if I have made any mistakes here but happy to update if necessary.
Yes, I'd like to stress the fact that this MUST NOT be reverted in mainline, only in v6.12 and v6.17 stable branches.
But why? Why not take the upstream changes instead? We would much rather do that as it reduces the divergance. 5 patches is trivial for us to take.
My thinking was that they are a bit invasive for backports, as noted in the commit message. But if that is the preferred option I can do a series with those instead?
Thanks, Charles
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:48:02AM +0000, Charles Keepax wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 12:43:16PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:31:56AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:29 AM Charles Keepax ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com wrote:
This reverts commit 25decf0469d4c91d90aa2e28d996aed276bfc622.
This software node change doesn't actually fix any current issues with the kernel, it is an improvement to the lookup process rather than fixing a live bug. It also causes a couple of regressions with shipping laptops, which relied on the label based lookup.
There is a fix for the regressions in mainline, the first 5 patches of [1]. However, those patches are fairly substantial changes and given the patch causing the regression doesn't actually fix a bug it seems better to just revert it in stable.
CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 6.12, 6.17 Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-sound/20251120-reset-gpios-swnodes-v7-0-a10049... [1] Closes: https://github.com/thesofproject/linux/issues/5599 Closes: https://github.com/thesofproject/linux/issues/5603 Acked-by: Bartosz Golaszewski bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org Signed-off-by: Charles Keepax ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com
I wasn't exactly sure of the proceedure for reverting a patch that was cherry-picked to stable, so apologies if I have made any mistakes here but happy to update if necessary.
Yes, I'd like to stress the fact that this MUST NOT be reverted in mainline, only in v6.12 and v6.17 stable branches.
But why? Why not take the upstream changes instead? We would much rather do that as it reduces the divergance. 5 patches is trivial for us to take.
My thinking was that they are a bit invasive for backports, as noted in the commit message. But if that is the preferred option I can do a series with those instead?
I'd prefer to take what is upstream, it's simpler over the long term to do so.
thanks,
greg k-h
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 12:58:30PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:48:02AM +0000, Charles Keepax wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 12:43:16PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:31:56AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:29 AM Charles Keepax ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com wrote:
This reverts commit 25decf0469d4c91d90aa2e28d996aed276bfc622.
This software node change doesn't actually fix any current issues with the kernel, it is an improvement to the lookup process rather than fixing a live bug. It also causes a couple of regressions with shipping laptops, which relied on the label based lookup.
There is a fix for the regressions in mainline, the first 5 patches of [1]. However, those patches are fairly substantial changes and given the patch causing the regression doesn't actually fix a bug it seems better to just revert it in stable.
CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 6.12, 6.17 Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-sound/20251120-reset-gpios-swnodes-v7-0-a10049... [1] Closes: https://github.com/thesofproject/linux/issues/5599 Closes: https://github.com/thesofproject/linux/issues/5603 Acked-by: Bartosz Golaszewski bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org Signed-off-by: Charles Keepax ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com
I wasn't exactly sure of the proceedure for reverting a patch that was cherry-picked to stable, so apologies if I have made any mistakes here but happy to update if necessary.
Yes, I'd like to stress the fact that this MUST NOT be reverted in mainline, only in v6.12 and v6.17 stable branches.
But why? Why not take the upstream changes instead? We would much rather do that as it reduces the divergance. 5 patches is trivial for us to take.
My thinking was that they are a bit invasive for backports, as noted in the commit message. But if that is the preferred option I can do a series with those instead?
I'd prefer to take what is upstream, it's simpler over the long term to do so.
I really doubt this will end up simpler, as the comparison here is a) not backporting a change that probably shouldn't have gone to stable in the first place vs. b) backport a bunch of quite invasive changes.
Do we have to wait for the fixes to hit Linus's tree before pushing them to stable? As they are still in Philipp Zabel's reset tree at the moment and I would quite like to stem the rising tide of tickets I am getting about audio breaking on peoples laptops as soon as possible.
Thanks, Charles
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 12:49:59PM +0000, Charles Keepax wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 12:58:30PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:48:02AM +0000, Charles Keepax wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 12:43:16PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:31:56AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:29 AM Charles Keepax ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com wrote:
This reverts commit 25decf0469d4c91d90aa2e28d996aed276bfc622.
This software node change doesn't actually fix any current issues with the kernel, it is an improvement to the lookup process rather than fixing a live bug. It also causes a couple of regressions with shipping laptops, which relied on the label based lookup.
There is a fix for the regressions in mainline, the first 5 patches of [1]. However, those patches are fairly substantial changes and given the patch causing the regression doesn't actually fix a bug it seems better to just revert it in stable.
CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 6.12, 6.17 Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-sound/20251120-reset-gpios-swnodes-v7-0-a10049... [1] Closes: https://github.com/thesofproject/linux/issues/5599 Closes: https://github.com/thesofproject/linux/issues/5603 Acked-by: Bartosz Golaszewski bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org Signed-off-by: Charles Keepax ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com
I wasn't exactly sure of the proceedure for reverting a patch that was cherry-picked to stable, so apologies if I have made any mistakes here but happy to update if necessary.
Yes, I'd like to stress the fact that this MUST NOT be reverted in mainline, only in v6.12 and v6.17 stable branches.
But why? Why not take the upstream changes instead? We would much rather do that as it reduces the divergance. 5 patches is trivial for us to take.
My thinking was that they are a bit invasive for backports, as noted in the commit message. But if that is the preferred option I can do a series with those instead?
I'd prefer to take what is upstream, it's simpler over the long term to do so.
I really doubt this will end up simpler, as the comparison here is a) not backporting a change that probably shouldn't have gone to stable in the first place vs. b) backport a bunch of quite invasive changes.
But think about future changes/fixes. 6.12 is going to be around for 5 more years, doing one-off fixes ensures that any future changes/fixes will NOT apply to 6.12.y and require custom changes that are almost guaranteed to break.
Again, it is almost always better to take the same changes that are in Linus's tree as they are better tested and future fixes apply cleaner.
But I defer to the maintainer, of the maintainer says to take this one-off change (i.e. revert), I'll gladly do so. Just trying to explain that taking lots of upstream changes is almost always the right thing to do in the long run. And we are in this for the long run.
Do we have to wait for the fixes to hit Linus's tree before pushing them to stable? As they are still in Philipp Zabel's reset tree at the moment and I would quite like to stem the rising tide of tickets I am getting about audio breaking on peoples laptops as soon as possible.
Yes, we need the fixes there first.
thanks,
greg k-h
On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 02:51:50PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 12:49:59PM +0000, Charles Keepax wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 12:58:30PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:48:02AM +0000, Charles Keepax wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 12:43:16PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:31:56AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:29 AM Charles Keepax ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com wrote:
Do we have to wait for the fixes to hit Linus's tree before pushing them to stable? As they are still in Philipp Zabel's reset tree at the moment and I would quite like to stem the rising tide of tickets I am getting about audio breaking on peoples laptops as soon as possible.
Yes, we need the fixes there first.
Fair enough, but it is super sad that everyone has to sit around with broken devices until after the merge window. This is not a theoretical issue people are complaining about this now.
Thanks, Charles
On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 02:04:48PM +0000, Charles Keepax wrote:
On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 02:51:50PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 12:49:59PM +0000, Charles Keepax wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 12:58:30PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:48:02AM +0000, Charles Keepax wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 12:43:16PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:31:56AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:29 AM Charles Keepax > ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com wrote:
Do we have to wait for the fixes to hit Linus's tree before pushing them to stable? As they are still in Philipp Zabel's reset tree at the moment and I would quite like to stem the rising tide of tickets I am getting about audio breaking on peoples laptops as soon as possible.
Yes, we need the fixes there first.
Fair enough, but it is super sad that everyone has to sit around with broken devices until after the merge window. This is not a theoretical issue people are complaining about this now.
Are people sitting around with this issue in 6.18-rc releases now? Is 6.18-final going to be broken in the same way?
confused,
greg k-h
On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 03:07:48PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 02:04:48PM +0000, Charles Keepax wrote:
On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 02:51:50PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 12:49:59PM +0000, Charles Keepax wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 12:58:30PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:48:02AM +0000, Charles Keepax wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 12:43:16PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:31:56AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:29 AM Charles Keepax > > ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com wrote:
Do we have to wait for the fixes to hit Linus's tree before pushing them to stable? As they are still in Philipp Zabel's reset tree at the moment and I would quite like to stem the rising tide of tickets I am getting about audio breaking on peoples laptops as soon as possible.
Yes, we need the fixes there first.
Fair enough, but it is super sad that everyone has to sit around with broken devices until after the merge window. This is not a theoretical issue people are complaining about this now.
Are people sitting around with this issue in 6.18-rc releases now? Is 6.18-final going to be broken in the same way?
Yeah regrettably that is going to be broken too, at least until the first stable release either does the same revert or backports the same fixes.
Thanks, Charles
On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 02:10:32PM +0000, Charles Keepax wrote:
On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 03:07:48PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 02:04:48PM +0000, Charles Keepax wrote:
On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 02:51:50PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 12:49:59PM +0000, Charles Keepax wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 12:58:30PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:48:02AM +0000, Charles Keepax wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 12:43:16PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:31:56AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:29 AM Charles Keepax > > > ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com wrote:
Do we have to wait for the fixes to hit Linus's tree before pushing them to stable? As they are still in Philipp Zabel's reset tree at the moment and I would quite like to stem the rising tide of tickets I am getting about audio breaking on peoples laptops as soon as possible.
Yes, we need the fixes there first.
Fair enough, but it is super sad that everyone has to sit around with broken devices until after the merge window. This is not a theoretical issue people are complaining about this now.
Are people sitting around with this issue in 6.18-rc releases now? Is 6.18-final going to be broken in the same way?
Yeah regrettably that is going to be broken too, at least until the first stable release either does the same revert or backports the same fixes.
Great, we are "bug compatible!" :)
Seriously, this happens for minor things all the time, not that big of a deal normally.
thanks,
greg k-h
On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 3:17 PM Greg KH gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 02:10:32PM +0000, Charles Keepax wrote:
On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 03:07:48PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 02:04:48PM +0000, Charles Keepax wrote:
On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 02:51:50PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 12:49:59PM +0000, Charles Keepax wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 12:58:30PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:48:02AM +0000, Charles Keepax wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 12:43:16PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:31:56AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:29 AM Charles Keepax > > > > ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com wrote: Do we have to wait for the fixes to hit Linus's tree before pushing them to stable? As they are still in Philipp Zabel's reset tree at the moment and I would quite like to stem the rising tide of tickets I am getting about audio breaking on peoples laptops as soon as possible.
Yes, we need the fixes there first.
Fair enough, but it is super sad that everyone has to sit around with broken devices until after the merge window. This is not a theoretical issue people are complaining about this now.
Are people sitting around with this issue in 6.18-rc releases now? Is 6.18-final going to be broken in the same way?
Yeah regrettably that is going to be broken too, at least until the first stable release either does the same revert or backports the same fixes.
Great, we are "bug compatible!" :)
Seriously, this happens for minor things all the time, not that big of a deal normally.
Just my two cents: this feature interacts quite a lot with another new feature: shared GPIOs in GPIOLIB. I've already either queued or have under review ~7 other fixes. Since in stable, the code from this series would not interact with gpiolib-shared (because no way this should get backported), we'd still have a bit of a different environment in mainline and stable branches.
I would very much prefer to revert the patch in question than worry about divergences in logic.
Bartosz
On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 03:45:29PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 3:17 PM Greg KH gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 02:10:32PM +0000, Charles Keepax wrote:
On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 03:07:48PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 02:04:48PM +0000, Charles Keepax wrote:
On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 02:51:50PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 12:49:59PM +0000, Charles Keepax wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 12:58:30PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:48:02AM +0000, Charles Keepax wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 12:43:16PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:31:56AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:29 AM Charles Keepax > > > > > ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com wrote: > Do we have to wait for the fixes to hit Linus's tree before > pushing them to stable? As they are still in Philipp Zabel's > reset tree at the moment and I would quite like to stem the > rising tide of tickets I am getting about audio breaking on > peoples laptops as soon as possible.
Yes, we need the fixes there first.
Fair enough, but it is super sad that everyone has to sit around with broken devices until after the merge window. This is not a theoretical issue people are complaining about this now.
Are people sitting around with this issue in 6.18-rc releases now? Is 6.18-final going to be broken in the same way?
Yeah regrettably that is going to be broken too, at least until the first stable release either does the same revert or backports the same fixes.
Great, we are "bug compatible!" :)
Seriously, this happens for minor things all the time, not that big of a deal normally.
Just my two cents: this feature interacts quite a lot with another new feature: shared GPIOs in GPIOLIB. I've already either queued or have under review ~7 other fixes. Since in stable, the code from this series would not interact with gpiolib-shared (because no way this should get backported), we'd still have a bit of a different environment in mainline and stable branches.
I would very much prefer to revert the patch in question than worry about divergences in logic.
Ok, fair enough, now reverted!
thanks,
greg k-h
linux-stable-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Bartosz Golaszewski -
Charles Keepax -
Greg KH