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 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E2C4C433F5 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2022 15:18:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1345325AbiDRPVT (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Apr 2022 11:21:19 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:33488 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1345335AbiDRPVA (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Apr 2022 11:21:00 -0400 Received: from mail-ej1-x631.google.com (mail-ej1-x631.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::631]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E84AC90D4; Mon, 18 Apr 2022 07:18:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ej1-x631.google.com with SMTP id r13so27115382ejd.5; Mon, 18 Apr 2022 07:18:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=oOl2Vvn39de4P/DDrUZWEr84mmGT3rwLK0gEKwLAL8s=; b=feQ/p3x3itOtxrZySLUf9P1K/spqoY+VBwv9Mw7CupMcn5JjSmTKkUXI1XqY58sgaK ZE1a4kHzGa6udfdNlTfq8ZvlxxKfJ34i3sFiItah1UdF7QYBx3MWEYn/+HzMXV5uqaqN ZVb06EQfGacflVk1OY/RtH8iBal8ndnq1y+hNExQJoBbV9mSP0JccLpiqM8BISegKiRk 5W6HOV0p2FgJWkxjRixrm2pMuPg/5LougDAkWMgIwChis5frWI0awCSL2kFuFtvSNttk qNh2QBxMtvahjsePbNKidSeD/M1+LRYKoHFKus6u1JO3L3O13UbYbAm8NqAmtldqDx4P PFpA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=oOl2Vvn39de4P/DDrUZWEr84mmGT3rwLK0gEKwLAL8s=; b=8Edyc/UIioHPjn4Ui09moB/fTStNYNzjhX+jYNM8lfwenwj4ESFUvyD2qDDpLI29GU 51G99pGePxl6K8U+B0yP3iX0o4O+HyOp0sgBca5oqkkeIaML6MG+lGPgbDN2Qu6ckqFW 6JbK4CnHyH8MH2EodftV5bIbwIJBira0E9wYmn+wWKzIOP4EbbRNA4DoZrXICsJlG4d3 c5W6hCoEb39Qi4gF8p9DcZNDqETyNA1IryNJhQeEexbQijCJSh9uYjI7X4X9OOCYRDfy f/2ToPb6QTrey6fJJbJLzQLT7bIOT+dMximovk6WjH3Xcv5cce/LU+EUO9os1W/8S7VW qPAA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532LtrZO4yIxNYe0ai/a7bDWszxNIVuVIGYQjc3PaaCwYZAIeiwU GP7WeQcJKqilngANndmuCo+T6Y1HGrGayLmU82dWIcfQILQdqg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxZqT8orVqZJEjJnG+1HrtAMGQsn7w9U6Xue8OXM1mLz/pcCdG0gxwym3p1qyPW5h99bK9s+W0vta9BrZJGeEQ= X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:8a14:b0:6e8:9691:62f7 with SMTP id sc20-20020a1709078a1400b006e8969162f7mr9478736ejc.497.1650291511577; Mon, 18 Apr 2022 07:18:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220414025705.598-1-mario.limonciello@amd.com> <20966c6b-9045-9f8b-ba35-bf44091ce380@gmail.com> <67df4178-5943-69d8-0d61-f533671a1248@amd.com> <49dceaa1-7e8a-671a-0601-2ee92a5d3818@leemhuis.info> In-Reply-To: <49dceaa1-7e8a-671a-0601-2ee92a5d3818@leemhuis.info> From: Andy Shevchenko Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2022 17:17:55 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: Request interrupts after IRQ is initialized To: Thorsten Leemhuis Cc: Mario Limonciello , firew4lker , Linus Walleij , Bartosz Golaszewski , Shreeya Patel , "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" , open list , Basavaraj Natikar , Richard.Gong@amd.com, Stable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 4:58 PM Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > On 18.04.22 13:42, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 7:34 AM Mario Limonciello > > wrote: > >> On 4/17/22 07:24, firew4lker wrote: > > > > ... > > > >> Linus Walleij, > >> > >> As this is backported to 5.15.y, 5.16.y, 5.17.y and those all had point > >> releases a bunch of people are hitting it now. If you choose to adopt > >> this patch instead of revert the broken one, you can add to the commit > >> message too: > >> > >> Link: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues/1976 > > > > I prefer to explicitly tell that this is a link to a bug report, hence BugLink:. > > But this is just my 2 cents. > > Please use "Link:" as explained by the kernel's documentation in > Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst > Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst (disclaimer: I recently made this > more explicit, but the concept it old). That's important, as people have > tools that rely on it -- I for example run one to track regressions, but > I might not be the only one running a tool that relies on proper tags. To me it looks like a documentation confusion since Link is what is added automatically by `b4` tool. Having Link from the patch thread (and not always the one with the discussion) as well as link to the issue will be confusing. > And FWIW: I'm all for making this more explicit, but people already use > various different tags (BugLink is just one of them) for that and that > just results in a mess. Nope, it results otherwise. The Link is Link to the thread, which you may find a lot in the kernel history. Making bug report links and links to the patch threads that's what results in a mess. > I proposed consistent tags, but that didn't get > much feedback. Maybe I should try again. Makes me wonder: where does > BugLink come from? Is that something that people are used to from > GitLab, GitHub, or something? It comes from kernel history :-) -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko