Re: [linux-yocto] [linux-yocto std&preemp-rt kernel v6.6]: nxp-s32g: pinctrl: s32cc: use devm_kzalloc() to alloc pinctrl_desc struct to avoid random value

[Zhantao Tang via lists.yoctoproject.org]

On 2024/7/9 21:11, Bruce Ashfield wrote:

CAUTION: This email comes from a non Wind River email account!
Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know 
the content is safe.

In message: Re: [linux-yocto] [linux-yocto std&preemp-rt kernel v6.6]: 
nxp-s32g: pinctrl: s32cc: use devm_kzalloc() to alloc pinctrl_desc struct to avoid 
random value
on 09/07/2024 zhantao.tang wrote:

On 2024/7/9 11:19, Bruce Ashfield wrote:

     CAUTION: This email comes from a non Wind River email account!
     Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and 
know the content is safe.

     In message: [linux-yocto] [linux-yocto std&preemp-rt kernel v6.6]: 
nxp-s32g: pinctrl: s32cc: use devm_kzalloc() to alloc pinctrl_desc struct to avoid 
random value
     on 09/07/2024 Zhantao Tang wrote:


         Hi Bruce,

         There is a patch for v6.6 kernel to fix one pinctrl issue.
         Would you please help to merge it to the following branches?
               v6.6/standard/nxp-sdk-6.6/nxp-s32g
               v6.6/standard/preempt-rt/nxp-sdk-6.6/nxp-s32g

     merged.

Hi Bruce,


Thanks for your merging.

I checked the codes, but it seems that you pushed the commit a0089d1f("irq:
imx: irqsteer: Unset data->domain->dev"),
which is for v6.6/standard/preempt-rt/nxp-sdk-6.6/nxp-soc and v6.1/standard/
preempt-rt/nxp-sdk-6.1/nxp-soc branches, to s32g branches.

I think it is because the branch names are so similar for S32G and other NXP
soc branch,

And the patch "pinctrl: s32cc: use devm_kzalloc() to alloc pinctrl_desc struct
to avoid random value" is the right one for S32G branches:
     v6.6/standard/nxp-sdk-6.6/nxp-s32g
     v6.6/standard/preempt-rt/nxp-sdk-6.6/nxp-s32g

So would you please help to correct it?

I've reverted the patch and grabbed yours, everything should be
fixed now.

It wasn't the similarity of the branch names, I don't actually
type the branches in, I have scripts that process the mbox by
extracting the patch and then applying it to the branches .. but
your patch and the incorrectly patch have the same starting prefix
for the patch so my scripts overwrote the correct patch with
the second and applied it!

OK, got it.

Very appreciate for your quick and hard work.


Thanks,

Zhantao

Bruce

Thanks,

Zhantao

     Bruce



         Thanks,
         Zhantao

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#14132): 
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/linux-yocto/message/14132
Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/107116486/21656
Group Owner: linux-yocto+ow...@lists.yoctoproject.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/linux-yocto/unsub 
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-