Re: [GIT PULL] USB fixes for 5.14-rc3

On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 04:53:03PM +0000, Minas Harutyunyan wrote:

Hi Greg,

On 7/25/2021 8:15 PM, Greg KH wrote:

quoted

On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 04:05:11PM +0000, Minas Harutyunyan wrote:

quoted

Hi  Greg,
On 7/23/2021 6:53 PM, Greg KH wrote:

quoted

The following changes since commit e73f0f0ee7541171d89f2e2491130c7771ba58d3:

    Linux 5.14-rc1 (2021-07-11 15:07:40 -0700)

are available in the Git repository at:

    git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/usb.git tags/usb-5.14-rc3

for you to fetch changes up to 1d1b97d5e7636d72890a5bdd0b40e980e54b2d34:

    Merge tag 'usb-serial-5.14-rc3' of https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/johan/usb-serial__;!!A4F2R9G_pg!MJ8qYQZESfA6SADfkbKTOvLpPUIWj9rC0lSEDjqrLPEJjfiuWPCWgzU0Yi_Vb7wC7J3PJwdX$  into usb-linus (2021-07-22 20:51:14 +0200)

----------------------------------------------------------------
USB fixes for 5.14-rc3

Here are some USB fixes for 5.14-rc3 to resolve a bunch of tiny problems
reported.  Included in here are:
	- dtsi revert to resolve a problem which broke android systems
	  that relied on the dts name to find the USB controller device.
	  People are still working out the "real" solution for this, but
	  for now the revert is needed.
	- core USB fix for pipe calculation found by syzbot
	- typec fixes
	- gadget driver fixes
	- new usb-serial device ids
	- new USB quirks
	- xhci fixes
	- usb hub fixes for power management issues reported
	- other tiny fixes

All have been in linux-next with no reported problems.

Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>

quoted

Marek Szyprowski (1):
        usb: dwc2: Skip clock gating on Samsung SoCs

I didn't ACK this patch. Me and Marek Szyprowski agreed to discuss
details of this patch after he will back from vacation after August 2.

Ok, so should I revert it now that it is in Linus's tree?  Did I miss
the discussion that said there were problems with it?  I see an ack for
the patch, what was wrong with that?

Yes, please revert it until we discuss with author details of patch.
Actually I have replied to this patch with some questions and additional 
testing request.
Patch was ACKed-by Krzysztof Kozlowski 
[off-list ref], but not by me.

Sure, but what is wrong with this change?  As this fixes a regression,
shouldn't it stay in the tree for now?

thanks,

greg k-h