On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 02:22:10PM +0100, Dan Scally wrote: > On 16/09/2020 10:17, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 12:28:27AM +0100, Daniel Scally wrote:
... > >> @@ -450,7 +455,7 @@ software_node_get_next_child(const struct > >> fwnode_handle *fwnode, > >> c = list_next_entry(c, entry); > >> else > >> c = list_first_entry(&p->children, struct swnode, entry); > >> - return &c->fwnode; > >> + return software_node_get(&c->fwnode); > > This looks like a bugfix that probably should or could be backported. Could > > you make it a separate patch, with a Fixes: tag? > Yes, sure. That does change how some of the other code would need to > work though if this patch were applied but not the separated one. Sorry; > not sure what's the best way to proceed in that case. Should I just note > that this patch depends on the prior application of the separated one? It's easy to achieve. You may create a series of two, where the second one dependant on the first one and first one has a Fixes tag and subject to backport. I guess that's what Sakari meant. > >> } -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
