Re: linusw/for-next boot bisection: v5.2-rc1-8-g73a790c68d7e on rk3288-veyron-jaq

[Guillaume Tucker <guillaume.tucker@collabora.com>]

Hi Linus,

On 28/05/2019 00:38, kernelci.org bot wrote:
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> * This automated bisection report was sent to you on the basis  *
> * that you may be involved with the breaking commit it has      *
> * found.  No manual investigation has been done to verify it,   *
> * and the root cause of the problem may be somewhere else.      *
> * Hope this helps!                                              *
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> 
> linusw/for-next boot bisection: v5.2-rc1-8-g73a790c68d7e on rk3288-veyron-jaq
> 
> Summary:
>   Start:      73a790c68d7e Merge branch 'devel' into for-next
>   Details:    https://kernelci.org/boot/id/5cebf03d59b514dd627a3629
>   Plain log:  https://storage.kernelci.org//linusw/for-next/v5.2-rc1-8-g73a790c68d7e/arm/multi_v7_defconfig/gcc-8/lab-collabora/boot-rk3288-veyron-jaq.txt
>   HTML log:   https://storage.kernelci.org//linusw/for-next/v5.2-rc1-8-g73a790c68d7e/arm/multi_v7_defconfig/gcc-8/lab-collabora/boot-rk3288-veyron-jaq.html
>   Result:     28694e009e51 thermal: rockchip: fix up the tsadc pinctrl setting error
> 
> Checks:
>   revert:     PASS
>   verify:     PASS
> 
> Parameters:
>   Tree:       linusw
>   URL:        https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linusw/linux-gpio.git/
>   Branch:     for-next
>   Target:     rk3288-veyron-jaq
>   CPU arch:   arm
>   Lab:        lab-collabora
>   Compiler:   gcc-8
>   Config:     multi_v7_defconfig
>   Test suite: boot
> 
> Breaking commit found:
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> commit 28694e009e512451ead5519dd801f9869acb1f60
> Author: Elaine Zhang <zhangqing@rock-chips.com>
> Date:   Tue Apr 30 18:09:44 2019 +0800
> 
>     thermal: rockchip: fix up the tsadc pinctrl setting error

This commit has now been reverted in mainline.  Would it be OK
for you to rebase your for-next branch on v5.2-rc2 or cherry-pick
the revert to avoid recurring bisections?

Ideally this should have been fixed or reverted in mainline
before v5.2-rc1 was released, or even earlier when this was first
found in -next on 13th May.  Unfortunately it was overlooked and
then spread to other branches like yours.

Thanks,
Guillaume