[PATCH] ARM: dts: imx6q-dhcom: Add PU,VDD1P1,VDD2P5 regulators

[Shawn Guo]

On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 12:17 AM Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de> wrote:
>
> On 3/6/21 12:21 PM, Shawn Guo wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 6, 2021 at 7:10 PM Shawn Guo <shawnguo at kernel.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 12:19:25PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >>> On 3/5/21 9:39 AM, Shawn Guo wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 01:07:32PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >>>>> On 3/4/21 8:56 AM, Shawn Guo wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 03:04:07PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 3/3/21 1:56 PM, Shawn Guo wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 12:54:03AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Per schematic, both PU and SOC regulator are supplied from LTC3676 SW1
> >>>>>>>>> via VDDSOC_IN rail, add the PU input. Both VDD1P1, VDD2P5 are supplied
> >>>>>>>>> from LTC3676 SW2 via VDDHIGH_IN rail, add both inputs.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Fixes: 52c7a088badd ("ARM: dts: imx6q: Add support for the DHCOM iMX6 SoM and PDK2")
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It's more like an improvement or additions rather than fixes.  I dropped
> >>>>>>>> the tag and applied for -next.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I would argue that describing SoC regulators correctly is a bugfix, since it
> >>>>>>> can lead to stability issues of the SoC.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Then resend the patch with details of the issue that it fixes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Can you please tell me what is missing in the original patch description
> >>>>> that justifies dropping the Fixes: tag ? I would argue that fully describing
> >>>>> CPU regulators in DT is a fix which should go through the stable tree and
> >>>>> the original patch description is accurate.
> >>>>
> >>>> You claim that the patch fixes a stability issue, but commit log
> >>>> mentions nothing about it.
> >>>
> >>> Correction, I claim it can lead to stability issues, so far none were
> >>> observed to my knowledge. But I would argue a correct regulator setup in DT
> >>> for a specific device is a bugfix and should go through stable tree. Please
> >>> correct me if I'm wrong.
> >>
> >> All I'm asking is that you resend the patch with commit log stating why
> >> this is a bugfix and should go through stable tree, because it's not
> >> obvious at least to me.
> >
> > In case it's still not clear, the message you replied me multiple
> > times here should really be put into the commit log.
>
> I added the Fixes tag, so that should indicate this is a bugfix and
> should be backported. However, no stability issues were observed thus
> far, hence none are described in the commit message. The commit message
> says exactly what this patch does.
>
> Please tell me what you would prefer to have in the commit message
> differently, spell it out for me, because I clearly do not get it.

I dropped the patch from my -next queue, as you disagree with that.
And to be clear, I'm not taking this patch as it is as a bugfix and
sending it for -rc, so feel free to ask upper level maintainers to
override me.

Shawn