[PATCH][next][V2] i2c: xiic: fix indentation issue

[PATCH][next][V2] i2c: xiic: fix indentation issue

[Colin King]

From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>

There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove
the extraneous tab.

Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
---
V2: fix type in commit message
---
 drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644
--- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
+++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
@@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c)
 		xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET);
 		if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
 			dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n");
-				return -ETIMEDOUT;
+			return -ETIMEDOUT;
 		}
 	}
 
-- 
2.24.0

[PATCH][next][V2] i2c: xiic: fix indentation issue

[Colin King]

From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>

There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove
the extraneous tab.

Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
---
V2: fix type in commit message
---
 drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644
--- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
+++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
@@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c)
 		xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET);
 		if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
 			dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n");
-				return -ETIMEDOUT;
+			return -ETIMEDOUT;
 		}
 	}
 
-- 
2.24.0


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH][next][V2] i2c: xiic: fix indentation issue

[Michal Simek]

On 27. 01. 20 11:23, Colin King wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> 
> There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove
> the extraneous tab.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> ---
> V2: fix type in commit message
> ---
>  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c)
>  		xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET);
>  		if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
>  			dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n");
> -				return -ETIMEDOUT;
> +			return -ETIMEDOUT;
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> 

As was suggested by Peter you should also add Fixes: <sha1> ("patch
subject")

Thanks,
Michal

Re: [PATCH][next][V2] i2c: xiic: fix indentation issue

[Michal Simek]

On 27. 01. 20 11:23, Colin King wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> 
> There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove
> the extraneous tab.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> ---
> V2: fix type in commit message
> ---
>  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c)
>  		xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET);
>  		if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
>  			dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n");
> -				return -ETIMEDOUT;
> +			return -ETIMEDOUT;
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> 

As was suggested by Peter you should also add Fixes: <sha1> ("patch
subject")

Thanks,
Michal

Re: [PATCH][next][V2] i2c: xiic: fix indentation issue

[Michal Simek]

On 27. 01. 20 11:23, Colin King wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> 
> There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove
> the extraneous tab.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> ---
> V2: fix type in commit message
> ---
>  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c)
>  		xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET);
>  		if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
>  			dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n");
> -				return -ETIMEDOUT;
> +			return -ETIMEDOUT;
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> 

As was suggested by Peter you should also add Fixes: <sha1> ("patch
subject")

Thanks,
Michal

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH][next][V2] i2c: xiic: fix indentation issue

[Johan Hovold]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:03:02PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
> On 27. 01. 20 11:23, Colin King wrote:
> > From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> > 
> > There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove
> > the extraneous tab.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> > ---
> > V2: fix type in commit message
> > ---
> >  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> > index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> > @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c)
> >  		xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET);
> >  		if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
> >  			dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n");
> > -				return -ETIMEDOUT;
> > +			return -ETIMEDOUT;
> >  		}
> >  	}
> >  
> > 
> 
> As was suggested by Peter you should also add Fixes: <sha1> ("patch
> subject")

Please stop this silliness. This is not a bug fix and does not need a
Fixes tag.

Johan

Re: [PATCH][next][V2] i2c: xiic: fix indentation issue

[Johan Hovold]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:03:02PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
> On 27. 01. 20 11:23, Colin King wrote:
> > From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> > 
> > There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove
> > the extraneous tab.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> > ---
> > V2: fix type in commit message
> > ---
> >  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> > index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> > @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c)
> >  		xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET);
> >  		if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
> >  			dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n");
> > -				return -ETIMEDOUT;
> > +			return -ETIMEDOUT;
> >  		}
> >  	}
> >  
> > 
> 
> As was suggested by Peter you should also add Fixes: <sha1> ("patch
> subject")

Please stop this silliness. This is not a bug fix and does not need a
Fixes tag.

Johan

Re: [PATCH][next][V2] i2c: xiic: fix indentation issue

[Johan Hovold]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:03:02PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
> On 27. 01. 20 11:23, Colin King wrote:
> > From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> > 
> > There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove
> > the extraneous tab.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> > ---
> > V2: fix type in commit message
> > ---
> >  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> > index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> > @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c)
> >  		xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET);
> >  		if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
> >  			dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n");
> > -				return -ETIMEDOUT;
> > +			return -ETIMEDOUT;
> >  		}
> >  	}
> >  
> > 
> 
> As was suggested by Peter you should also add Fixes: <sha1> ("patch
> subject")

Please stop this silliness. This is not a bug fix and does not need a
Fixes tag.

Johan

Re: [PATCH][next][V2] i2c: xiic: fix indentation issue

[Johan Hovold]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:03:02PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
> On 27. 01. 20 11:23, Colin King wrote:
> > From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> > 
> > There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove
> > the extraneous tab.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> > ---
> > V2: fix type in commit message
> > ---
> >  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> > index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> > @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c)
> >  		xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET);
> >  		if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
> >  			dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n");
> > -				return -ETIMEDOUT;
> > +			return -ETIMEDOUT;
> >  		}
> >  	}
> >  
> > 
> 
> As was suggested by Peter you should also add Fixes: <sha1> ("patch
> subject")

Please stop this silliness. This is not a bug fix and does not need a
Fixes tag.

Johan

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH][next][V2] i2c: xiic: fix indentation issue

[Shubhrajyoti Datta]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 4:46 PM Colin King <colin.king@canonical.com> wrote:
>
> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>
> There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove
> the extraneous tab.
>
Reviewed-by: Shubhrajyoti Datta <shubhrajyoti.datta@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> ---
> V2: fix type in commit message
> ---
>  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c)
>                 xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET);
>                 if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
>                         dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n");
> -                               return -ETIMEDOUT;
> +                       return -ETIMEDOUT;
>                 }
>         }
>
> --
> 2.24.0
>

Re: [PATCH][next][V2] i2c: xiic: fix indentation issue

[Shubhrajyoti Datta]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 4:46 PM Colin King <colin.king@canonical.com> wrote:
>
> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>
> There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove
> the extraneous tab.
>
Reviewed-by: Shubhrajyoti Datta <shubhrajyoti.datta@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> ---
> V2: fix type in commit message
> ---
>  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c)
>                 xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET);
>                 if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
>                         dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n");
> -                               return -ETIMEDOUT;
> +                       return -ETIMEDOUT;
>                 }
>         }
>
> --
> 2.24.0
>

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH][next][V2] i2c: xiic: fix indentation issue

[Shubhrajyoti Datta]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 4:46 PM Colin King <colin.king@canonical.com> wrote:
>
> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>
> There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove
> the extraneous tab.
>
Reviewed-by: Shubhrajyoti Datta <shubhrajyoti.datta@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> ---
> V2: fix type in commit message
> ---
>  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c)
>                 xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET);
>                 if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
>                         dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n");
> -                               return -ETIMEDOUT;
> +                       return -ETIMEDOUT;
>                 }
>         }
>
> --
> 2.24.0
>

Re: [PATCH][next][V2] i2c: xiic: fix indentation issue

[Dan Carpenter]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:03:02PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
> On 27. 01. 20 11:23, Colin King wrote:
> > From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> > 
> > There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove
> > the extraneous tab.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> > ---
> > V2: fix type in commit message
> > ---
> >  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> > index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> > @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c)
> >  		xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET);
> >  		if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
> >  			dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n");
> > -				return -ETIMEDOUT;
> > +			return -ETIMEDOUT;
> >  		}
> >  	}
> >  
> > 
> 
> As was suggested by Peter you should also add Fixes: <sha1> ("patch
> subject")
> 

It's not really a bugfix, it's just a cleanup.

regards,
dan carpenter

Re: [PATCH][next][V2] i2c: xiic: fix indentation issue

[Dan Carpenter]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:03:02PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
> On 27. 01. 20 11:23, Colin King wrote:
> > From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> > 
> > There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove
> > the extraneous tab.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> > ---
> > V2: fix type in commit message
> > ---
> >  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> > index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> > @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c)
> >  		xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET);
> >  		if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
> >  			dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n");
> > -				return -ETIMEDOUT;
> > +			return -ETIMEDOUT;
> >  		}
> >  	}
> >  
> > 
> 
> As was suggested by Peter you should also add Fixes: <sha1> ("patch
> subject")
> 

It's not really a bugfix, it's just a cleanup.

regards,
dan carpenter

Re: [PATCH][next][V2] i2c: xiic: fix indentation issue

[Dan Carpenter]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:03:02PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
> On 27. 01. 20 11:23, Colin King wrote:
> > From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> > 
> > There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove
> > the extraneous tab.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> > ---
> > V2: fix type in commit message
> > ---
> >  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> > index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> > @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c)
> >  		xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET);
> >  		if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
> >  			dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n");
> > -				return -ETIMEDOUT;
> > +			return -ETIMEDOUT;
> >  		}
> >  	}
> >  
> > 
> 
> As was suggested by Peter you should also add Fixes: <sha1> ("patch
> subject")
> 

It's not really a bugfix, it's just a cleanup.

regards,
dan carpenter


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH][next][V2] i2c: xiic: fix indentation issue

[Colin Ian King]

On 27/01/2020 12:05, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:03:02PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
>> On 27. 01. 20 11:23, Colin King wrote:
>>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>>>
>>> There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove
>>> the extraneous tab.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>>> ---
>>> V2: fix type in commit message
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +-
>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>> index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>> @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c)
>>>  		xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET);
>>>  		if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
>>>  			dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n");
>>> -				return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>> +			return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>>  		}
>>>  	}
>>>  
>>>
>>
>> As was suggested by Peter you should also add Fixes: <sha1> ("patch
>> subject")
>>
> 
> It's not really a bugfix, it's just a cleanup.

I'm surprised i wasn't asked for a bug number too.

> 
> regards,
> dan carpenter
> 

Re: [PATCH][next][V2] i2c: xiic: fix indentation issue

[Colin Ian King]

On 27/01/2020 12:05, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:03:02PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
>> On 27. 01. 20 11:23, Colin King wrote:
>>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>>>
>>> There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove
>>> the extraneous tab.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>>> ---
>>> V2: fix type in commit message
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +-
>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>> index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>> @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c)
>>>  		xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET);
>>>  		if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
>>>  			dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n");
>>> -				return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>> +			return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>>  		}
>>>  	}
>>>  
>>>
>>
>> As was suggested by Peter you should also add Fixes: <sha1> ("patch
>> subject")
>>
> 
> It's not really a bugfix, it's just a cleanup.

I'm surprised i wasn't asked for a bug number too.

> 
> regards,
> dan carpenter
> 

Re: [PATCH][next][V2] i2c: xiic: fix indentation issue

[Colin Ian King]

On 27/01/2020 12:05, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:03:02PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
>> On 27. 01. 20 11:23, Colin King wrote:
>>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>>>
>>> There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove
>>> the extraneous tab.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>>> ---
>>> V2: fix type in commit message
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +-
>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>> index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>> @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c)
>>>  		xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET);
>>>  		if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
>>>  			dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n");
>>> -				return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>> +			return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>>  		}
>>>  	}
>>>  
>>>
>>
>> As was suggested by Peter you should also add Fixes: <sha1> ("patch
>> subject")
>>
> 
> It's not really a bugfix, it's just a cleanup.

I'm surprised i wasn't asked for a bug number too.

> 
> regards,
> dan carpenter
> 


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH][next][V2] i2c: xiic: fix indentation issue

[Michal Simek]

On 27. 01. 20 13:08, Colin Ian King wrote:
> On 27/01/2020 12:05, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:03:02PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
>>> On 27. 01. 20 11:23, Colin King wrote:
>>>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>>>>
>>>> There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove
>>>> the extraneous tab.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> V2: fix type in commit message
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +-
>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>> index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>> @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c)
>>>>  		xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET);
>>>>  		if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
>>>>  			dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n");
>>>> -				return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>>> +			return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>>>  		}
>>>>  	}
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>
>>> As was suggested by Peter you should also add Fixes: <sha1> ("patch
>>> subject")
>>>
>>
>> It's not really a bugfix, it's just a cleanup.
> 
> I'm surprised i wasn't asked for a bug number too.

ok. Up2you.

Thanks,
Michal

Re: [PATCH][next][V2] i2c: xiic: fix indentation issue

[Michal Simek]

On 27. 01. 20 13:08, Colin Ian King wrote:
> On 27/01/2020 12:05, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:03:02PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
>>> On 27. 01. 20 11:23, Colin King wrote:
>>>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>>>>
>>>> There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove
>>>> the extraneous tab.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> V2: fix type in commit message
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +-
>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>> index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>> @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c)
>>>>  		xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET);
>>>>  		if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
>>>>  			dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n");
>>>> -				return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>>> +			return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>>>  		}
>>>>  	}
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>
>>> As was suggested by Peter you should also add Fixes: <sha1> ("patch
>>> subject")
>>>
>>
>> It's not really a bugfix, it's just a cleanup.
> 
> I'm surprised i wasn't asked for a bug number too.

ok. Up2you.

Thanks,
Michal

Re: [PATCH][next][V2] i2c: xiic: fix indentation issue

[Michal Simek]

On 27. 01. 20 13:08, Colin Ian King wrote:
> On 27/01/2020 12:05, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:03:02PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
>>> On 27. 01. 20 11:23, Colin King wrote:
>>>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>>>>
>>>> There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove
>>>> the extraneous tab.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> V2: fix type in commit message
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +-
>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>> index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>> @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c)
>>>>  		xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET);
>>>>  		if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
>>>>  			dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n");
>>>> -				return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>>> +			return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>>>  		}
>>>>  	}
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>
>>> As was suggested by Peter you should also add Fixes: <sha1> ("patch
>>> subject")
>>>
>>
>> It's not really a bugfix, it's just a cleanup.
> 
> I'm surprised i wasn't asked for a bug number too.

ok. Up2you.

Thanks,
Michal

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH][next][V2] i2c: xiic: fix indentation issue

[Peter Rosin]

On 2020-01-27 13:08, Colin Ian King wrote:
> On 27/01/2020 12:05, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:03:02PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
>>> On 27. 01. 20 11:23, Colin King wrote:
>>>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>>>>
>>>> There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove
>>>> the extraneous tab.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> V2: fix type in commit message
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +-
>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>> index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>> @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c)
>>>>  		xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET);
>>>>  		if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
>>>>  			dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n");
>>>> -				return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>>> +			return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>>>  		}
>>>>  	}
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>
>>> As was suggested by Peter you should also add Fixes: <sha1> ("patch
>>> subject")
>>>
>>
>> It's not really a bugfix, it's just a cleanup.
> 
> I'm surprised i wasn't asked for a bug number too.

Very funny.

I realize that you, the three complainers (Johan, Dan and Colin), together
have almost 10000 commits. So, I feel a bit outranked.

However, this ridicule is unfair.

The problem here is that Colin sent a v2, ignoring my suggestion to add
a fixes-tag without mentioning that my suggestion was in fact ignored
(and why). That is a sure way to invite someone else to point out what
seemed like an omission. Which happened. And then this farce ensued.

So, Colin, take a long look in the mirror and direct your sarcasm in
whatever direction you feel appropriate.

I also maintain that noone writes code like this on purpose (at least
not without some ulterior motive). This is the kind of stuff that cause
problems and wastes time later when someone mis-reads the code. You three
people, with all those commits, should know that. My point is that this
is more than just cleanup and is indeed fixing a bug. Claiming otherwise
is just silly. The compiler is not the only consumer of the code.

Cheers,
Peter

Re: [PATCH][next][V2] i2c: xiic: fix indentation issue

[Peter Rosin]

On 2020-01-27 13:08, Colin Ian King wrote:
> On 27/01/2020 12:05, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:03:02PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
>>> On 27. 01. 20 11:23, Colin King wrote:
>>>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>>>>
>>>> There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove
>>>> the extraneous tab.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> V2: fix type in commit message
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +-
>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>> index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>> @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c)
>>>>  		xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET);
>>>>  		if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
>>>>  			dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n");
>>>> -				return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>>> +			return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>>>  		}
>>>>  	}
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>
>>> As was suggested by Peter you should also add Fixes: <sha1> ("patch
>>> subject")
>>>
>>
>> It's not really a bugfix, it's just a cleanup.
> 
> I'm surprised i wasn't asked for a bug number too.

Very funny.

I realize that you, the three complainers (Johan, Dan and Colin), together
have almost 10000 commits. So, I feel a bit outranked.

However, this ridicule is unfair.

The problem here is that Colin sent a v2, ignoring my suggestion to add
a fixes-tag without mentioning that my suggestion was in fact ignored
(and why). That is a sure way to invite someone else to point out what
seemed like an omission. Which happened. And then this farce ensued.

So, Colin, take a long look in the mirror and direct your sarcasm in
whatever direction you feel appropriate.

I also maintain that noone writes code like this on purpose (at least
not without some ulterior motive). This is the kind of stuff that cause
problems and wastes time later when someone mis-reads the code. You three
people, with all those commits, should know that. My point is that this
is more than just cleanup and is indeed fixing a bug. Claiming otherwise
is just silly. The compiler is not the only consumer of the code.

Cheers,
Peter

Re: [PATCH][next][V2] i2c: xiic: fix indentation issue

[Peter Rosin]
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Re: [PATCH][next][V2] i2c: xiic: fix indentation issue

[Peter Rosin]

On 2020-01-27 13:08, Colin Ian King wrote:
> On 27/01/2020 12:05, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:03:02PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
>>> On 27. 01. 20 11:23, Colin King wrote:
>>>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>>>>
>>>> There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove
>>>> the extraneous tab.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> V2: fix type in commit message
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +-
>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>> index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>> @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c)
>>>>  		xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET);
>>>>  		if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
>>>>  			dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n");
>>>> -				return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>>> +			return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>>>  		}
>>>>  	}
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>
>>> As was suggested by Peter you should also add Fixes: <sha1> ("patch
>>> subject")
>>>
>>
>> It's not really a bugfix, it's just a cleanup.
> 
> I'm surprised i wasn't asked for a bug number too.

Very funny.

I realize that you, the three complainers (Johan, Dan and Colin), together
have almost 10000 commits. So, I feel a bit outranked.

However, this ridicule is unfair.

The problem here is that Colin sent a v2, ignoring my suggestion to add
a fixes-tag without mentioning that my suggestion was in fact ignored
(and why). That is a sure way to invite someone else to point out what
seemed like an omission. Which happened. And then this farce ensued.

So, Colin, take a long look in the mirror and direct your sarcasm in
whatever direction you feel appropriate.

I also maintain that noone writes code like this on purpose (at least
not without some ulterior motive). This is the kind of stuff that cause
problems and wastes time later when someone mis-reads the code. You three
people, with all those commits, should know that. My point is that this
is more than just cleanup and is indeed fixing a bug. Claiming otherwise
is just silly. The compiler is not the only consumer of the code.

Cheers,
Peter
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH][next][V2] i2c: xiic: fix indentation issue

[Colin Ian King]

On 28/01/2020 21:45, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2020-01-27 13:08, Colin Ian King wrote:
>> On 27/01/2020 12:05, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:03:02PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
>>>> On 27. 01. 20 11:23, Colin King wrote:
>>>>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove
>>>>> the extraneous tab.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> V2: fix type in commit message
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +-
>>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>>> index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>>> @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c)
>>>>>  		xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET);
>>>>>  		if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
>>>>>  			dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n");
>>>>> -				return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>>>> +			return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>>>>  		}
>>>>>  	}
>>>>>  
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As was suggested by Peter you should also add Fixes: <sha1> ("patch
>>>> subject")
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's not really a bugfix, it's just a cleanup.
>>
>> I'm surprised i wasn't asked for a bug number too.
> 
> Very funny.

Apologies for being flippant. I didn't mean to offend. My bad #1.

> 
> I realize that you, the three complainers (Johan, Dan and Colin), together
> have almost 10000 commits. So, I feel a bit outranked.
> 
> However, this ridicule is unfair.
> 
> The problem here is that Colin sent a v2, ignoring my suggestion to add
> a fixes-tag without mentioning that my suggestion was in fact ignored
> (and why). That is a sure way to invite someone else to point out what
> seemed like an omission. Which happened. And then this farce ensued.

I can only apologize for not adding the fixes tag because I honestly
didn't see the fixes tag request until after the follow-ups. I didn't
indent to rile anyone on this and I didn't want to offend anyone by
purposely ignoring their requires. My bad #2.

> 
> So, Colin, take a long look in the mirror and direct your sarcasm in
> whatever direction you feel appropriate.

I did. And I was wrong. My bad #3.

> 
> I also maintain that noone writes code like this on purpose (at least
> not without some ulterior motive). This is the kind of stuff that cause
> problems and wastes time later when someone mis-reads the code. You three
> people, with all those commits, should know that. My point is that this
> is more than just cleanup and is indeed fixing a bug. Claiming otherwise
> is just silly. The compiler is not the only consumer of the code.

Whatever is needed to get fixes into the kernel. Some say it's a bug,
others don't. As long as it's fixed then I'm happy.  If in the process I
did the wrong thing I can only apologize profoundly and profusely.

Colin


> 
> Cheers,
> Peter
> 

Re: [PATCH][next][V2] i2c: xiic: fix indentation issue

[Colin Ian King]

On 28/01/2020 21:45, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2020-01-27 13:08, Colin Ian King wrote:
>> On 27/01/2020 12:05, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:03:02PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
>>>> On 27. 01. 20 11:23, Colin King wrote:
>>>>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove
>>>>> the extraneous tab.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> V2: fix type in commit message
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +-
>>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>>> index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>>> @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c)
>>>>>  		xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET);
>>>>>  		if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
>>>>>  			dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n");
>>>>> -				return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>>>> +			return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>>>>  		}
>>>>>  	}
>>>>>  
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As was suggested by Peter you should also add Fixes: <sha1> ("patch
>>>> subject")
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's not really a bugfix, it's just a cleanup.
>>
>> I'm surprised i wasn't asked for a bug number too.
> 
> Very funny.

Apologies for being flippant. I didn't mean to offend. My bad #1.

> 
> I realize that you, the three complainers (Johan, Dan and Colin), together
> have almost 10000 commits. So, I feel a bit outranked.
> 
> However, this ridicule is unfair.
> 
> The problem here is that Colin sent a v2, ignoring my suggestion to add
> a fixes-tag without mentioning that my suggestion was in fact ignored
> (and why). That is a sure way to invite someone else to point out what
> seemed like an omission. Which happened. And then this farce ensued.

I can only apologize for not adding the fixes tag because I honestly
didn't see the fixes tag request until after the follow-ups. I didn't
indent to rile anyone on this and I didn't want to offend anyone by
purposely ignoring their requires. My bad #2.

> 
> So, Colin, take a long look in the mirror and direct your sarcasm in
> whatever direction you feel appropriate.

I did. And I was wrong. My bad #3.

> 
> I also maintain that noone writes code like this on purpose (at least
> not without some ulterior motive). This is the kind of stuff that cause
> problems and wastes time later when someone mis-reads the code. You three
> people, with all those commits, should know that. My point is that this
> is more than just cleanup and is indeed fixing a bug. Claiming otherwise
> is just silly. The compiler is not the only consumer of the code.

Whatever is needed to get fixes into the kernel. Some say it's a bug,
others don't. As long as it's fixed then I'm happy.  If in the process I
did the wrong thing I can only apologize profoundly and profusely.

Colin


> 
> Cheers,
> Peter
> 

Re: [PATCH][next][V2] i2c: xiic: fix indentation issue

[Colin Ian King]

On 28/01/2020 21:45, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2020-01-27 13:08, Colin Ian King wrote:
>> On 27/01/2020 12:05, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:03:02PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
>>>> On 27. 01. 20 11:23, Colin King wrote:
>>>>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove
>>>>> the extraneous tab.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> V2: fix type in commit message
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +-
>>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>>> index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>>> @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c)
>>>>>  		xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET);
>>>>>  		if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
>>>>>  			dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n");
>>>>> -				return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>>>> +			return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>>>>  		}
>>>>>  	}
>>>>>  
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As was suggested by Peter you should also add Fixes: <sha1> ("patch
>>>> subject")
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's not really a bugfix, it's just a cleanup.
>>
>> I'm surprised i wasn't asked for a bug number too.
> 
> Very funny.

Apologies for being flippant. I didn't mean to offend. My bad #1.

> 
> I realize that you, the three complainers (Johan, Dan and Colin), together
> have almost 10000 commits. So, I feel a bit outranked.
> 
> However, this ridicule is unfair.
> 
> The problem here is that Colin sent a v2, ignoring my suggestion to add
> a fixes-tag without mentioning that my suggestion was in fact ignored
> (and why). That is a sure way to invite someone else to point out what
> seemed like an omission. Which happened. And then this farce ensued.

I can only apologize for not adding the fixes tag because I honestly
didn't see the fixes tag request until after the follow-ups. I didn't
indent to rile anyone on this and I didn't want to offend anyone by
purposely ignoring their requires. My bad #2.

> 
> So, Colin, take a long look in the mirror and direct your sarcasm in
> whatever direction you feel appropriate.

I did. And I was wrong. My bad #3.

> 
> I also maintain that noone writes code like this on purpose (at least
> not without some ulterior motive). This is the kind of stuff that cause
> problems and wastes time later when someone mis-reads the code. You three
> people, with all those commits, should know that. My point is that this
> is more than just cleanup and is indeed fixing a bug. Claiming otherwise
> is just silly. The compiler is not the only consumer of the code.

Whatever is needed to get fixes into the kernel. Some say it's a bug,
others don't. As long as it's fixed then I'm happy.  If in the process I
did the wrong thing I can only apologize profoundly and profusely.

Colin


> 
> Cheers,
> Peter
> 

Re: [PATCH][next][V2] i2c: xiic: fix indentation issue

[Colin Ian King]

On 28/01/2020 21:45, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2020-01-27 13:08, Colin Ian King wrote:
>> On 27/01/2020 12:05, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:03:02PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
>>>> On 27. 01. 20 11:23, Colin King wrote:
>>>>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove
>>>>> the extraneous tab.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> V2: fix type in commit message
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +-
>>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>>> index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>>> @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c)
>>>>>  		xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET);
>>>>>  		if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
>>>>>  			dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n");
>>>>> -				return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>>>> +			return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>>>>  		}
>>>>>  	}
>>>>>  
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As was suggested by Peter you should also add Fixes: <sha1> ("patch
>>>> subject")
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's not really a bugfix, it's just a cleanup.
>>
>> I'm surprised i wasn't asked for a bug number too.
> 
> Very funny.

Apologies for being flippant. I didn't mean to offend. My bad #1.

> 
> I realize that you, the three complainers (Johan, Dan and Colin), together
> have almost 10000 commits. So, I feel a bit outranked.
> 
> However, this ridicule is unfair.
> 
> The problem here is that Colin sent a v2, ignoring my suggestion to add
> a fixes-tag without mentioning that my suggestion was in fact ignored
> (and why). That is a sure way to invite someone else to point out what
> seemed like an omission. Which happened. And then this farce ensued.

I can only apologize for not adding the fixes tag because I honestly
didn't see the fixes tag request until after the follow-ups. I didn't
indent to rile anyone on this and I didn't want to offend anyone by
purposely ignoring their requires. My bad #2.

> 
> So, Colin, take a long look in the mirror and direct your sarcasm in
> whatever direction you feel appropriate.

I did. And I was wrong. My bad #3.

> 
> I also maintain that noone writes code like this on purpose (at least
> not without some ulterior motive). This is the kind of stuff that cause
> problems and wastes time later when someone mis-reads the code. You three
> people, with all those commits, should know that. My point is that this
> is more than just cleanup and is indeed fixing a bug. Claiming otherwise
> is just silly. The compiler is not the only consumer of the code.

Whatever is needed to get fixes into the kernel. Some say it's a bug,
others don't. As long as it's fixed then I'm happy.  If in the process I
did the wrong thing I can only apologize profoundly and profusely.

Colin


> 
> Cheers,
> Peter
> 


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH][next][V2] i2c: xiic: fix indentation issue

[Joe Perches]

On Tue, 2020-01-28 at 23:10 +0000, Colin Ian King wrote:
> On 28/01/2020 21:45, Peter Rosin wrote:
> > On 2020-01-27 13:08, Colin Ian King wrote:
> > > On 27/01/2020 12:05, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:03:02PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
> > > > > On 27. 01. 20 11:23, Colin King wrote:
> > > > > > From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove
> > > > > > the extraneous tab.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > V2: fix type in commit message
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +-
> > > > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> > > > > > index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644
> > > > > > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> > > > > > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> > > > > > @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c)
> > > > > >  		xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET);
> > > > > >  		if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
> > > > > >  			dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n");
> > > > > > -				return -ETIMEDOUT;
> > > > > > +			return -ETIMEDOUT;
> > > > > >  		}
> > > > > >  	}
> > > > > >  
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > As was suggested by Peter you should also add Fixes: <sha1> ("patch
> > > > > subject")
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > It's not really a bugfix, it's just a cleanup.
> > > 
> > > I'm surprised i wasn't asked for a bug number too.
> > 
> > Very funny.
> 
> Apologies for being flippant. I didn't mean to offend. My bad #1.
> 
> > I realize that you, the three complainers (Johan, Dan and Colin), together
> > have almost 10000 commits. So, I feel a bit outranked.
> > 
> > However, this ridicule is unfair.

It's not unfair.

In _no_ sense is a whitespace only change a valid reason
to use a "Fixes:" tag.

A whitespace only coding-style issue is _not_ a bug.

From submitting-patches:

If your patch fixes a bug in a specific commit, e.g. you found an issue using
``git bisect``, please use the 'Fixes:' tag with the first 12 characters of
the SHA-1 ID, and the one line summary.

Re: [PATCH][next][V2] i2c: xiic: fix indentation issue

[Joe Perches]

On Tue, 2020-01-28 at 23:10 +0000, Colin Ian King wrote:
> On 28/01/2020 21:45, Peter Rosin wrote:
> > On 2020-01-27 13:08, Colin Ian King wrote:
> > > On 27/01/2020 12:05, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:03:02PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
> > > > > On 27. 01. 20 11:23, Colin King wrote:
> > > > > > From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove
> > > > > > the extraneous tab.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > V2: fix type in commit message
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +-
> > > > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> > > > > > index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644
> > > > > > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> > > > > > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> > > > > > @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c)
> > > > > >  		xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET);
> > > > > >  		if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
> > > > > >  			dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n");
> > > > > > -				return -ETIMEDOUT;
> > > > > > +			return -ETIMEDOUT;
> > > > > >  		}
> > > > > >  	}
> > > > > >  
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > As was suggested by Peter you should also add Fixes: <sha1> ("patch
> > > > > subject")
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > It's not really a bugfix, it's just a cleanup.
> > > 
> > > I'm surprised i wasn't asked for a bug number too.
> > 
> > Very funny.
> 
> Apologies for being flippant. I didn't mean to offend. My bad #1.
> 
> > I realize that you, the three complainers (Johan, Dan and Colin), together
> > have almost 10000 commits. So, I feel a bit outranked.
> > 
> > However, this ridicule is unfair.

It's not unfair.

In _no_ sense is a whitespace only change a valid reason
to use a "Fixes:" tag.

A whitespace only coding-style issue is _not_ a bug.

>From submitting-patches:

If your patch fixes a bug in a specific commit, e.g. you found an issue using
``git bisect``, please use the 'Fixes:' tag with the first 12 characters of
the SHA-1 ID, and the one line summary.

Re: [PATCH][next][V2] i2c: xiic: fix indentation issue

[Joe Perches]

On Tue, 2020-01-28 at 23:10 +0000, Colin Ian King wrote:
> On 28/01/2020 21:45, Peter Rosin wrote:
> > On 2020-01-27 13:08, Colin Ian King wrote:
> > > On 27/01/2020 12:05, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:03:02PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
> > > > > On 27. 01. 20 11:23, Colin King wrote:
> > > > > > From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove
> > > > > > the extraneous tab.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > V2: fix type in commit message
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +-
> > > > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> > > > > > index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644
> > > > > > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> > > > > > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> > > > > > @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c)
> > > > > >  		xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET);
> > > > > >  		if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
> > > > > >  			dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n");
> > > > > > -				return -ETIMEDOUT;
> > > > > > +			return -ETIMEDOUT;
> > > > > >  		}
> > > > > >  	}
> > > > > >  
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > As was suggested by Peter you should also add Fixes: <sha1> ("patch
> > > > > subject")
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > It's not really a bugfix, it's just a cleanup.
> > > 
> > > I'm surprised i wasn't asked for a bug number too.
> > 
> > Very funny.
> 
> Apologies for being flippant. I didn't mean to offend. My bad #1.
> 
> > I realize that you, the three complainers (Johan, Dan and Colin), together
> > have almost 10000 commits. So, I feel a bit outranked.
> > 
> > However, this ridicule is unfair.

It's not unfair.

In _no_ sense is a whitespace only change a valid reason
to use a "Fixes:" tag.

A whitespace only coding-style issue is _not_ a bug.

From submitting-patches:

If your patch fixes a bug in a specific commit, e.g. you found an issue using
``git bisect``, please use the 'Fixes:' tag with the first 12 characters of
the SHA-1 ID, and the one line summary.

Re: [PATCH][next][V2] i2c: xiic: fix indentation issue

[Joe Perches]

On Tue, 2020-01-28 at 23:10 +0000, Colin Ian King wrote:
> On 28/01/2020 21:45, Peter Rosin wrote:
> > On 2020-01-27 13:08, Colin Ian King wrote:
> > > On 27/01/2020 12:05, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:03:02PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
> > > > > On 27. 01. 20 11:23, Colin King wrote:
> > > > > > From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove
> > > > > > the extraneous tab.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > V2: fix type in commit message
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +-
> > > > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> > > > > > index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644
> > > > > > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> > > > > > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> > > > > > @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c)
> > > > > >  		xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET);
> > > > > >  		if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
> > > > > >  			dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n");
> > > > > > -				return -ETIMEDOUT;
> > > > > > +			return -ETIMEDOUT;
> > > > > >  		}
> > > > > >  	}
> > > > > >  
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > As was suggested by Peter you should also add Fixes: <sha1> ("patch
> > > > > subject")
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > It's not really a bugfix, it's just a cleanup.
> > > 
> > > I'm surprised i wasn't asked for a bug number too.
> > 
> > Very funny.
> 
> Apologies for being flippant. I didn't mean to offend. My bad #1.
> 
> > I realize that you, the three complainers (Johan, Dan and Colin), together
> > have almost 10000 commits. So, I feel a bit outranked.
> > 
> > However, this ridicule is unfair.

It's not unfair.

In _no_ sense is a whitespace only change a valid reason
to use a "Fixes:" tag.

A whitespace only coding-style issue is _not_ a bug.

From submitting-patches:

If your patch fixes a bug in a specific commit, e.g. you found an issue using
``git bisect``, please use the 'Fixes:' tag with the first 12 characters of
the SHA-1 ID, and the one line summary.



_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH][next][V2] i2c: xiic: fix indentation issue

[Peter Rosin]

On 2020-01-29 00:10, Colin Ian King wrote:
> On 28/01/2020 21:45, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> On 2020-01-27 13:08, Colin Ian King wrote:
>>> On 27/01/2020 12:05, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:03:02PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
>>>>> On 27. 01. 20 11:23, Colin King wrote:
>>>>>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove
>>>>>> the extraneous tab.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> V2: fix type in commit message
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +-
>>>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>>>> index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>>>> @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c)
>>>>>>  		xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET);
>>>>>>  		if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
>>>>>>  			dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n");
>>>>>> -				return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>>>>> +			return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>>>>>  		}
>>>>>>  	}
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As was suggested by Peter you should also add Fixes: <sha1> ("patch
>>>>> subject")
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's not really a bugfix, it's just a cleanup.
>>>
>>> I'm surprised i wasn't asked for a bug number too.
>>
>> Very funny.
> 
> Apologies for being flippant. I didn't mean to offend. My bad #1.

Apology accepted, no hard feelings. Don't worry about it, and sorry on my
part for a possible overreaction!

Cheers,
Peter

Re: [PATCH][next][V2] i2c: xiic: fix indentation issue

[Peter Rosin]

On 2020-01-29 00:10, Colin Ian King wrote:
> On 28/01/2020 21:45, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> On 2020-01-27 13:08, Colin Ian King wrote:
>>> On 27/01/2020 12:05, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:03:02PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
>>>>> On 27. 01. 20 11:23, Colin King wrote:
>>>>>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove
>>>>>> the extraneous tab.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> V2: fix type in commit message
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +-
>>>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>>>> index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>>>> @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c)
>>>>>>  		xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET);
>>>>>>  		if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
>>>>>>  			dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n");
>>>>>> -				return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>>>>> +			return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>>>>>  		}
>>>>>>  	}
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As was suggested by Peter you should also add Fixes: <sha1> ("patch
>>>>> subject")
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's not really a bugfix, it's just a cleanup.
>>>
>>> I'm surprised i wasn't asked for a bug number too.
>>
>> Very funny.
> 
> Apologies for being flippant. I didn't mean to offend. My bad #1.

Apology accepted, no hard feelings. Don't worry about it, and sorry on my
part for a possible overreaction!

Cheers,
Peter

Re: [PATCH][next][V2] i2c: xiic: fix indentation issue

[Peter Rosin]
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Re: [PATCH][next][V2] i2c: xiic: fix indentation issue

[Peter Rosin]

On 2020-01-29 00:10, Colin Ian King wrote:
> On 28/01/2020 21:45, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> On 2020-01-27 13:08, Colin Ian King wrote:
>>> On 27/01/2020 12:05, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:03:02PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
>>>>> On 27. 01. 20 11:23, Colin King wrote:
>>>>>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove
>>>>>> the extraneous tab.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> V2: fix type in commit message
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +-
>>>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>>>> index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>>>> @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c)
>>>>>>  		xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET);
>>>>>>  		if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
>>>>>>  			dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n");
>>>>>> -				return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>>>>> +			return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>>>>>  		}
>>>>>>  	}
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As was suggested by Peter you should also add Fixes: <sha1> ("patch
>>>>> subject")
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's not really a bugfix, it's just a cleanup.
>>>
>>> I'm surprised i wasn't asked for a bug number too.
>>
>> Very funny.
> 
> Apologies for being flippant. I didn't mean to offend. My bad #1.

Apology accepted, no hard feelings. Don't worry about it, and sorry on my
part for a possible overreaction!

Cheers,
Peter
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH][next][V2] i2c: xiic: fix indentation issue

[Peter Rosin]

On 2020-01-29 00:48, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-01-28 at 23:10 +0000, Colin Ian King wrote:
>> On 28/01/2020 21:45, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> On 2020-01-27 13:08, Colin Ian King wrote:
>>>> On 27/01/2020 12:05, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:03:02PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
>>>>>> On 27. 01. 20 11:23, Colin King wrote:
>>>>>>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove
>>>>>>> the extraneous tab.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> V2: fix type in commit message
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +-
>>>>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>>>>> index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>>>>> @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c)
>>>>>>>  		xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET);
>>>>>>>  		if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
>>>>>>>  			dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n");
>>>>>>> -				return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>>>>>> +			return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>>>>>>  		}
>>>>>>>  	}
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As was suggested by Peter you should also add Fixes: <sha1> ("patch
>>>>>> subject")
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not really a bugfix, it's just a cleanup.
>>>>
>>>> I'm surprised i wasn't asked for a bug number too.
>>>
>>> Very funny.
>>
>> Apologies for being flippant. I didn't mean to offend. My bad #1.
>>
>>> I realize that you, the three complainers (Johan, Dan and Colin), together
>>> have almost 10000 commits. So, I feel a bit outranked.
>>>
>>> However, this ridicule is unfair.

And the 4th heavy-weight steps in, and the grand total is now well past
10000 commits.

> It's not unfair.

Are you saying that it's fair???

> In _no_ sense is a whitespace only change a valid reason
> to use a "Fixes:" tag.
> 
> A whitespace only coding-style issue is _not_ a bug.

Right. That's one opinion. And it seems that many long time contributors agree
that this is the case. So it must be the only acceptable opinion. Or?

In my book coding-style issues is about taste, i.e. if you use spaces or tabs
to indent, and if and when you add a new-line before {. Etc. This fix is about
directly misleading code that noone writes on purpose. Clearly a bug in my
book, and not some meager "style" issue.

> From submitting-patches:
> 
> If your patch fixes a bug in a specific commit, e.g. you found an issue using
> ``git bisect``, please use the 'Fixes:' tag with the first 12 characters of
> the SHA-1 ID, and the one line summary.

You need to read that carefully. Do you see that "e.g." part? This quote states
*one* example of how you can find a bug. It's not some exhaustive list and thus
"proves" nothing what-so-ever.

Besides, reading the git biscet manual reveals that

"In fact, git bisect can be used to find the commit that changed any property
 of your project"

So, if we are being ridiculous, thanks for the support! Below is the proof that
I found a really horrible *bisectable* bug! Looks like a fixes-tag was warranted
after all!!!1!

On a more serious note I challenge you to find anything in Documentation/ that
tells me, without ambiguity, that the patch in question is *not* fixing a bug,
because your quote is clearly not it.

I'm *only* saying that it is not always so damn easy to categorize issues, and
that a mis-step does not warrant ridicule.

Cheers,
Peter


$ cat finder.sh
#! /bin/sh

if grep 'return -ETIMEDOUT;' drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c; then
    exit 1
fi
$ git bisect start
$ git bisect bad
$ git bisect good v5.5-rc1
Bisecting: 814 revisions left to test after this (roughly 10 steps)
[0dd1e3773ae8afc4bfdce782bdeffc10f9cae6ec] pipe: fix empty pipe check in pipe_write()
$ git bisect run ./finder.sh
running ./finder.sh
Bisecting: 406 revisions left to test after this (roughly 9 steps)
[ca78fdeb00fa656f09afee977750e85da929d259] Merge tag 'drm-fixes-2020-01-03' of git://anongit.freedesktop.org/drm/drm
running ./finder.sh
Bisecting: 210 revisions left to test after this (roughly 8 steps)
[a5f48c7878d2365f6ff7008e9317abbc16f68847] Merge git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net
running ./finder.sh
Bisecting: 102 revisions left to test after this (roughly 7 steps)
[7da37cd0520e71707a1190022377941b9cec3b0b] Merge tag 'staging-5.5-rc6' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/staging
running ./finder.sh
Bisecting: 52 revisions left to test after this (roughly 6 steps)
[040a3c33623ba4bd11588ab0820281b854a3ffaf] Merge tag 'iommu-fixes-v5.5-rc5' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/joro/iommu
running ./finder.sh
Bisecting: 26 revisions left to test after this (roughly 5 steps)
[b3ec946975737b949137fbb1a2db9e7cc5b9ae82] i2c: tegra: Check DMA completion status in addition to left time
running ./finder.sh
Bisecting: 13 revisions left to test after this (roughly 4 steps)
[e8d51e962936bf4527f41db318d53a80006f2bf7] docs: i2c: use the new API in 'writing-clients'
running ./finder.sh
Bisecting: 6 revisions left to test after this (roughly 3 steps)
[4a2d5f663dab6614772d8e28ca190b127ba46d9d] i2c: Enable compile testing for more drivers
running ./finder.sh
                                return -ETIMEDOUT;
Bisecting: 3 revisions left to test after this (roughly 2 steps)
[40b2ec1251c370bc5557568e259d4058c651d405] i2c: highlander: Use proper printk format for size_t
running ./finder.sh
Bisecting: 1 revision left to test after this (roughly 1 step)
[c9d059681b846f5d0a280950ea4dc58495b9b7a9] i2c: xiic: defer the probe if clock is not found
running ./finder.sh
                                return -ETIMEDOUT;
Bisecting: 0 revisions left to test after this (roughly 0 steps)
[b4c119dbc300c7a6ee2da70d5c7ba14747b35142] i2c: xiic: Add timeout to the rx fifo wait loop
running ./finder.sh
                                return -ETIMEDOUT;
b4c119dbc300c7a6ee2da70d5c7ba14747b35142 is the first bad commit
commit b4c119dbc300c7a6ee2da70d5c7ba14747b35142
Author: Shubhrajyoti Datta <shubhrajyoti.datta@xilinx.com>
Date:   Thu Jan 9 17:07:58 2020 +0530

    i2c: xiic: Add timeout to the rx fifo wait loop

    Add timeout to the rx fifo empty wait loop. Also check for the return
    value for xiic_reinit and pass it to xiic_start_xfer.

    Signed-off-by: Shubhrajyoti Datta <shubhrajyoti.datta@xilinx.com>
    Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com>
    Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>

:040000 040000 ca301fc2df019bb2acd07bddabe4afa492ad8f65 22d719ef351bf4897b465d10630e30e7c5cf665f M      drivers
bisect run success

Re: [PATCH][next][V2] i2c: xiic: fix indentation issue

[Peter Rosin]

On 2020-01-29 00:48, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-01-28 at 23:10 +0000, Colin Ian King wrote:
>> On 28/01/2020 21:45, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> On 2020-01-27 13:08, Colin Ian King wrote:
>>>> On 27/01/2020 12:05, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:03:02PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
>>>>>> On 27. 01. 20 11:23, Colin King wrote:
>>>>>>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove
>>>>>>> the extraneous tab.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> V2: fix type in commit message
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +-
>>>>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>>>>> index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>>>>> @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c)
>>>>>>>  		xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET);
>>>>>>>  		if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
>>>>>>>  			dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n");
>>>>>>> -				return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>>>>>> +			return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>>>>>>  		}
>>>>>>>  	}
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As was suggested by Peter you should also add Fixes: <sha1> ("patch
>>>>>> subject")
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not really a bugfix, it's just a cleanup.
>>>>
>>>> I'm surprised i wasn't asked for a bug number too.
>>>
>>> Very funny.
>>
>> Apologies for being flippant. I didn't mean to offend. My bad #1.
>>
>>> I realize that you, the three complainers (Johan, Dan and Colin), together
>>> have almost 10000 commits. So, I feel a bit outranked.
>>>
>>> However, this ridicule is unfair.

And the 4th heavy-weight steps in, and the grand total is now well past
10000 commits.

> It's not unfair.

Are you saying that it's fair???

> In _no_ sense is a whitespace only change a valid reason
> to use a "Fixes:" tag.
> 
> A whitespace only coding-style issue is _not_ a bug.

Right. That's one opinion. And it seems that many long time contributors agree
that this is the case. So it must be the only acceptable opinion. Or?

In my book coding-style issues is about taste, i.e. if you use spaces or tabs
to indent, and if and when you add a new-line before {. Etc. This fix is about
directly misleading code that noone writes on purpose. Clearly a bug in my
book, and not some meager "style" issue.

> From submitting-patches:
> 
> If your patch fixes a bug in a specific commit, e.g. you found an issue using
> ``git bisect``, please use the 'Fixes:' tag with the first 12 characters of
> the SHA-1 ID, and the one line summary.

You need to read that carefully. Do you see that "e.g." part? This quote states
*one* example of how you can find a bug. It's not some exhaustive list and thus
"proves" nothing what-so-ever.

Besides, reading the git biscet manual reveals that

"In fact, git bisect can be used to find the commit that changed any property
 of your project"

So, if we are being ridiculous, thanks for the support! Below is the proof that
I found a really horrible *bisectable* bug! Looks like a fixes-tag was warranted
after all!!!1!

On a more serious note I challenge you to find anything in Documentation/ that
tells me, without ambiguity, that the patch in question is *not* fixing a bug,
because your quote is clearly not it.

I'm *only* saying that it is not always so damn easy to categorize issues, and
that a mis-step does not warrant ridicule.

Cheers,
Peter


$ cat finder.sh
#! /bin/sh

if grep 'return -ETIMEDOUT;' drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c; then
    exit 1
fi
$ git bisect start
$ git bisect bad
$ git bisect good v5.5-rc1
Bisecting: 814 revisions left to test after this (roughly 10 steps)
[0dd1e3773ae8afc4bfdce782bdeffc10f9cae6ec] pipe: fix empty pipe check in pipe_write()
$ git bisect run ./finder.sh
running ./finder.sh
Bisecting: 406 revisions left to test after this (roughly 9 steps)
[ca78fdeb00fa656f09afee977750e85da929d259] Merge tag 'drm-fixes-2020-01-03' of git://anongit.freedesktop.org/drm/drm
running ./finder.sh
Bisecting: 210 revisions left to test after this (roughly 8 steps)
[a5f48c7878d2365f6ff7008e9317abbc16f68847] Merge git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net
running ./finder.sh
Bisecting: 102 revisions left to test after this (roughly 7 steps)
[7da37cd0520e71707a1190022377941b9cec3b0b] Merge tag 'staging-5.5-rc6' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/staging
running ./finder.sh
Bisecting: 52 revisions left to test after this (roughly 6 steps)
[040a3c33623ba4bd11588ab0820281b854a3ffaf] Merge tag 'iommu-fixes-v5.5-rc5' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/joro/iommu
running ./finder.sh
Bisecting: 26 revisions left to test after this (roughly 5 steps)
[b3ec946975737b949137fbb1a2db9e7cc5b9ae82] i2c: tegra: Check DMA completion status in addition to left time
running ./finder.sh
Bisecting: 13 revisions left to test after this (roughly 4 steps)
[e8d51e962936bf4527f41db318d53a80006f2bf7] docs: i2c: use the new API in 'writing-clients'
running ./finder.sh
Bisecting: 6 revisions left to test after this (roughly 3 steps)
[4a2d5f663dab6614772d8e28ca190b127ba46d9d] i2c: Enable compile testing for more drivers
running ./finder.sh
                                return -ETIMEDOUT;
Bisecting: 3 revisions left to test after this (roughly 2 steps)
[40b2ec1251c370bc5557568e259d4058c651d405] i2c: highlander: Use proper printk format for size_t
running ./finder.sh
Bisecting: 1 revision left to test after this (roughly 1 step)
[c9d059681b846f5d0a280950ea4dc58495b9b7a9] i2c: xiic: defer the probe if clock is not found
running ./finder.sh
                                return -ETIMEDOUT;
Bisecting: 0 revisions left to test after this (roughly 0 steps)
[b4c119dbc300c7a6ee2da70d5c7ba14747b35142] i2c: xiic: Add timeout to the rx fifo wait loop
running ./finder.sh
                                return -ETIMEDOUT;
b4c119dbc300c7a6ee2da70d5c7ba14747b35142 is the first bad commit
commit b4c119dbc300c7a6ee2da70d5c7ba14747b35142
Author: Shubhrajyoti Datta <shubhrajyoti.datta@xilinx.com>
Date:   Thu Jan 9 17:07:58 2020 +0530

    i2c: xiic: Add timeout to the rx fifo wait loop

    Add timeout to the rx fifo empty wait loop. Also check for the return
    value for xiic_reinit and pass it to xiic_start_xfer.

    Signed-off-by: Shubhrajyoti Datta <shubhrajyoti.datta@xilinx.com>
    Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com>
    Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>

:040000 040000 ca301fc2df019bb2acd07bddabe4afa492ad8f65 22d719ef351bf4897b465d10630e30e7c5cf665f M      drivers
bisect run success

Re: [PATCH][next][V2] i2c: xiic: fix indentation issue

[Peter Rosin]
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Re: [PATCH][next][V2] i2c: xiic: fix indentation issue

[Peter Rosin]

On 2020-01-29 00:48, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-01-28 at 23:10 +0000, Colin Ian King wrote:
>> On 28/01/2020 21:45, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> On 2020-01-27 13:08, Colin Ian King wrote:
>>>> On 27/01/2020 12:05, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:03:02PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
>>>>>> On 27. 01. 20 11:23, Colin King wrote:
>>>>>>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove
>>>>>>> the extraneous tab.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> V2: fix type in commit message
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +-
>>>>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>>>>> index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>>>>> @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c)
>>>>>>>  		xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET);
>>>>>>>  		if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
>>>>>>>  			dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n");
>>>>>>> -				return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>>>>>> +			return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>>>>>>  		}
>>>>>>>  	}
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As was suggested by Peter you should also add Fixes: <sha1> ("patch
>>>>>> subject")
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not really a bugfix, it's just a cleanup.
>>>>
>>>> I'm surprised i wasn't asked for a bug number too.
>>>
>>> Very funny.
>>
>> Apologies for being flippant. I didn't mean to offend. My bad #1.
>>
>>> I realize that you, the three complainers (Johan, Dan and Colin), together
>>> have almost 10000 commits. So, I feel a bit outranked.
>>>
>>> However, this ridicule is unfair.

And the 4th heavy-weight steps in, and the grand total is now well past
10000 commits.

> It's not unfair.

Are you saying that it's fair???

> In _no_ sense is a whitespace only change a valid reason
> to use a "Fixes:" tag.
> 
> A whitespace only coding-style issue is _not_ a bug.

Right. That's one opinion. And it seems that many long time contributors agree
that this is the case. So it must be the only acceptable opinion. Or?

In my book coding-style issues is about taste, i.e. if you use spaces or tabs
to indent, and if and when you add a new-line before {. Etc. This fix is about
directly misleading code that noone writes on purpose. Clearly a bug in my
book, and not some meager "style" issue.

> From submitting-patches:
> 
> If your patch fixes a bug in a specific commit, e.g. you found an issue using
> ``git bisect``, please use the 'Fixes:' tag with the first 12 characters of
> the SHA-1 ID, and the one line summary.

You need to read that carefully. Do you see that "e.g." part? This quote states
*one* example of how you can find a bug. It's not some exhaustive list and thus
"proves" nothing what-so-ever.

Besides, reading the git biscet manual reveals that

"In fact, git bisect can be used to find the commit that changed any property
 of your project"

So, if we are being ridiculous, thanks for the support! Below is the proof that
I found a really horrible *bisectable* bug! Looks like a fixes-tag was warranted
after all!!!1!

On a more serious note I challenge you to find anything in Documentation/ that
tells me, without ambiguity, that the patch in question is *not* fixing a bug,
because your quote is clearly not it.

I'm *only* saying that it is not always so damn easy to categorize issues, and
that a mis-step does not warrant ridicule.

Cheers,
Peter


$ cat finder.sh
#! /bin/sh

if grep 'return -ETIMEDOUT;' drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c; then
    exit 1
fi
$ git bisect start
$ git bisect bad
$ git bisect good v5.5-rc1
Bisecting: 814 revisions left to test after this (roughly 10 steps)
[0dd1e3773ae8afc4bfdce782bdeffc10f9cae6ec] pipe: fix empty pipe check in pipe_write()
$ git bisect run ./finder.sh
running ./finder.sh
Bisecting: 406 revisions left to test after this (roughly 9 steps)
[ca78fdeb00fa656f09afee977750e85da929d259] Merge tag 'drm-fixes-2020-01-03' of git://anongit.freedesktop.org/drm/drm
running ./finder.sh
Bisecting: 210 revisions left to test after this (roughly 8 steps)
[a5f48c7878d2365f6ff7008e9317abbc16f68847] Merge git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net
running ./finder.sh
Bisecting: 102 revisions left to test after this (roughly 7 steps)
[7da37cd0520e71707a1190022377941b9cec3b0b] Merge tag 'staging-5.5-rc6' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/staging
running ./finder.sh
Bisecting: 52 revisions left to test after this (roughly 6 steps)
[040a3c33623ba4bd11588ab0820281b854a3ffaf] Merge tag 'iommu-fixes-v5.5-rc5' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/joro/iommu
running ./finder.sh
Bisecting: 26 revisions left to test after this (roughly 5 steps)
[b3ec946975737b949137fbb1a2db9e7cc5b9ae82] i2c: tegra: Check DMA completion status in addition to left time
running ./finder.sh
Bisecting: 13 revisions left to test after this (roughly 4 steps)
[e8d51e962936bf4527f41db318d53a80006f2bf7] docs: i2c: use the new API in 'writing-clients'
running ./finder.sh
Bisecting: 6 revisions left to test after this (roughly 3 steps)
[4a2d5f663dab6614772d8e28ca190b127ba46d9d] i2c: Enable compile testing for more drivers
running ./finder.sh
                                return -ETIMEDOUT;
Bisecting: 3 revisions left to test after this (roughly 2 steps)
[40b2ec1251c370bc5557568e259d4058c651d405] i2c: highlander: Use proper printk format for size_t
running ./finder.sh
Bisecting: 1 revision left to test after this (roughly 1 step)
[c9d059681b846f5d0a280950ea4dc58495b9b7a9] i2c: xiic: defer the probe if clock is not found
running ./finder.sh
                                return -ETIMEDOUT;
Bisecting: 0 revisions left to test after this (roughly 0 steps)
[b4c119dbc300c7a6ee2da70d5c7ba14747b35142] i2c: xiic: Add timeout to the rx fifo wait loop
running ./finder.sh
                                return -ETIMEDOUT;
b4c119dbc300c7a6ee2da70d5c7ba14747b35142 is the first bad commit
commit b4c119dbc300c7a6ee2da70d5c7ba14747b35142
Author: Shubhrajyoti Datta <shubhrajyoti.datta@xilinx.com>
Date:   Thu Jan 9 17:07:58 2020 +0530

    i2c: xiic: Add timeout to the rx fifo wait loop

    Add timeout to the rx fifo empty wait loop. Also check for the return
    value for xiic_reinit and pass it to xiic_start_xfer.

    Signed-off-by: Shubhrajyoti Datta <shubhrajyoti.datta@xilinx.com>
    Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com>
    Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>

:040000 040000 ca301fc2df019bb2acd07bddabe4afa492ad8f65 22d719ef351bf4897b465d10630e30e7c5cf665f M      drivers
bisect run success
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel