Re: [PATCH 0/5] pwm: Ensure configuring period and duty_cycle isn't wrongly skipped - Uwe Kleine-König

From: "Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org,
	"Uwe Kleine-König" <uwe@kleine-koenig.org>,
	"Baolin Wang" <baolin.wang@gmail.com>,
	"Chunyan Zhang" <zhang.lyra@gmail.com>,
	"Alexander Sverdlin" <alexander.sverdlin@gmail.com>,
	"Thomas Hebb" <tommyhebb@gmail.com>,
	kernel@pengutronix.de, "Orson Zhai" <orsonzhai@gmail.com>,
	"Lee Jones" <lee.jones@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] pwm: Ensure configuring period and duty_cycle isn't wrongly skipped
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2021 22:36:55 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210708203655.ry46r6eqo7lcuxx5@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YOcGkoQ4jb0G92Iz@orome.fritz.box>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2736 bytes --]

Hello Thierry,

On Thu, Jul 08, 2021 at 04:07:14PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 08, 2021 at 02:36:39PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 01, 2021 at 10:27:50AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > Geert Uytterhoeven found a regression in one of my patches. The same
> > > problem exists in several further commits. The respective drivers are
> > > fixed in this series.
> > > 
> > > The affected commits for the first patch is already in v5.4, so this
> > > patch should maybe backported to stable.
> > > The others are in Thierry's for-next branch only.
> > 
> > These four broken patches were now included in your pull request to
> > Linus for v5.14-rc1 but these fixes were not. I wonder that the
> > regression Geert reported made you back out the offending commit but you
> > didn't care for the four identical problems in pwm-spear, pwm-tiecap,
> > pwm-berlin and pwm-ep93xx. Did you miss this series?
> 
> Ugh... this is a nice big mess now. In retrospect I should've just
> backed out all those patches. Or rather not have applied them in the
> first place until they got a Tested-by.

Agreed, this isn't as optimal as it could have been. My conclusions are
a bit different though. I took the time to look at the details for these
changes:

 - 2021-04-11
   I sent "pwm: Ensure for legacy drivers that pwm->state stays
   consistent" to the linux-pwm list.

 - 2021-06-27
   The merge window for 5.14 opened

 - 2021-06-28
   You applied the patch, it then appeared in next-20210629 for the
   first time in next.

 - 2021-06-29
   Geert reported the regression

 - 2021-06-30
   You dropped the commit.

 - 2021-07-01
   I sent a fixed patch and incremental fixes for the same problems in
   the other drivers.

 - 2021-07-08
   Thierry sent a pull request containing the four broken (and unfixed)
   commits.

For me the conclusions here are:

 - Patches on the mailing list are not widely tested
   (So I think waiting for Tested-bys isn't a pragmatic option unless
   maybe we start adding more people to MAINTAINERS.)

 - Changes in next get (some) testing.

And so I think changes should be put into next earlier than it was the
case in this release cycle and it might be beneficial to check for
unapplied fixes before sending out a PR. Feel free to communicate with
me before sending the next PR if there is something on my radar that is
missing in your for-next branch.

> I'll pull in this series and will send this as a follow-up pull request.

Great.

Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]