From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC09BC07E96 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 2021 20:37:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C06F161607 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 2021 20:37:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230335AbhGHUjo (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jul 2021 16:39:44 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:46852 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230511AbhGHUjk (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jul 2021 16:39:40 -0400 Received: from metis.ext.pengutronix.de (metis.ext.pengutronix.de [IPv6:2001:67c:670:201:290:27ff:fe1d:cc33]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 404EBC061760 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 2021 13:36:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from drehscheibe.grey.stw.pengutronix.de ([2a0a:edc0:0:c01:1d::a2]) by metis.ext.pengutronix.de with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1m1alU-0003h7-Iw; Thu, 08 Jul 2021 22:36:56 +0200 Received: from [2a0a:edc0:0:900:1d::77] (helo=ptz.office.stw.pengutronix.de) by drehscheibe.grey.stw.pengutronix.de with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1m1alT-0003Qf-ML; Thu, 08 Jul 2021 22:36:55 +0200 Received: from ukl by ptz.office.stw.pengutronix.de with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1m1alT-0000MA-LE; Thu, 08 Jul 2021 22:36:55 +0200 Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2021 22:36:55 +0200 From: Uwe =?utf-8?Q?Kleine-K=C3=B6nig?= To: Thierry Reding Cc: linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, Uwe =?utf-8?Q?Kleine-K=C3=B6nig?= , Baolin Wang , Chunyan Zhang , Alexander Sverdlin , Thomas Hebb , kernel@pengutronix.de, Orson Zhai , Lee Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] pwm: Ensure configuring period and duty_cycle isn't wrongly skipped Message-ID: <20210708203655.ry46r6eqo7lcuxx5@pengutronix.de> References: <20210701082755.332593-1-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> <20210708123639.vrck33kc534yrnsq@pengutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ri7hhnmmtdbv6tdw" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2a0a:edc0:0:c01:1d::a2 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ukl@pengutronix.de X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on metis.ext.pengutronix.de); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-PTX-Original-Recipient: linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org --ri7hhnmmtdbv6tdw Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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-K=F6nig wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 01, 2021 at 10:27:50AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-K=F6nig 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. > > >=20 > > > 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. > >=20 > > 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? >=20 > 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 --=20 Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K=F6nig | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ | --ri7hhnmmtdbv6tdw Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEfnIqFpAYrP8+dKQLwfwUeK3K7AkFAmDnYd4ACgkQwfwUeK3K 7AmKBQf/ZuukXQgNXTLpPZ/H42gLz6+oiSJ6vXVZunoJ49hb8rUz2Th+hZt4RZsj oAdBYw79F2UAT+b7OrGLuVMnVD8vJZNq3yZEeOSlduZaYGsMrddvneponcCwHbYd urmWcjabJszg1+Vm+qJpYsJy/QUfZH6PThKJ6rEknai+WzRL4orwlsXJUcjyIn5S y0Uks2RNGjmP1tHxWtpT2O+deOaC3RbsgXv2Vj5o/O+bz7Cmm1KLfmmP5BoOT80d 3GKv6SDLP9/tT4hJYLpbGYx8VrbtSeuK7iPvxsveOy8poVhIiEMncIqDzzLyYAif Oj2RN+QyVGZjjRncBF5jnBpnhyvXaw== =gvoK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ri7hhnmmtdbv6tdw--