Cmt: [jammy xilinx-zynqmp 0/1] Fix backported kria device tree changes

[Manuel Diewald]

On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 12:30:43PM +0100, Roxana Nicolescu wrote:
> 
> On 21/02/2024 09:29, Manuel Diewald wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 09:03:25AM +0100, Roxana Nicolescu wrote:
> > > On 20/02/2024 05:30, Portia Stephens wrote:
> > > > [ Impact ]
> > > > 
> > > > * Kria device tree's were backported from Xilinx's 6.1 tree in order to add
> > > > support for the KD240 platform
> > > > (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux-xilinx-zynqmp/+bug/2046280) .
> > > > * Testing had previously been done a development branch with non-upstreamable
> > > > patches. 3 issues were introduced to the KD240 image that was not present on
> > > > the development branch.
> > > > * Since all Xilinx device tree's are so interdependent all Kria and ZCU device
> > > > trees were updated including certified platforms.
> > > > 
> > > > [ Test Plan ]
> > > > 
> > > > * QA will run certification testing on the KD240 platform
> > > > * Normal certification testing will be run on all other certified platforms
> > > > 
> > > > [ Where problems could occur ]
> > > > 
> > > > * This impacts the device tree for certified Xilinx platforms which could break
> > > > any of the device touched by the change.
> > > > 
> > > > [ Other Info ]
> > > > 
> > > > * Buglink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux-xilinx-zynqmp/+bug/2054366
> > > > 
> > > > * Private launchpad bugs that contain the regressions failure:
> > > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/limerick/+bug/2051228
> > > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/limerick/+bug/2051224
> > > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/limerick/+bug/2051201
> > > > 
> > > > Portia Stephens (1):
> > > >     UBUNTU: SAUCE: zynqmp.dtsi fix incorrectly backported changes
> > > > 
> > > >    .../arm64/boot/dts/xilinx/zynqmp-clk-ccf.dtsi |  2 +-
> > > >    arch/arm64/boot/dts/xilinx/zynqmp.dtsi        | 42 +++++++++++--------
> > > >    2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > Any reason the subject does not include SRU? It messes up my filters.
> > > The mailing list receives other type of emails, not only patches, and this
> > > is
> > > what I use to filter patches.
> > > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Kernel/Dev/StablePatchFormat
> > > 
> > > Roxana
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > kernel-team mailing list
> > > kernel-team at lists.ubuntu.com
> > > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
> > I think the SRU tag is not mandatory since the kernel is not a stable
> > kernel yet.
> > 
> Good point indeed. But I think at least PATCH should be used to show
> it is a patch.
> 
> Roxana
> 
> -- 
> kernel-team mailing list
> kernel-team at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team

I agree, if something like PATCH was mandatory, it would be possible to
filter for things that require reviews trivially - which is nice to
have.

-- 
 Manuel