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

[Roxana Nicolescu]

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