From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-oa1-f44.google.com (mail-oa1-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E7381FC1 for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2022 18:59:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oa1-f44.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-1011df6971aso11234538fac.1 for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2022 11:59:17 -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=7DJFpFT+M61LIr/9pPfEsAsFGxGe0TN/S/etgDHxSFw=; b=EhyzX8MfEVQrY1J5uG3TqHkItFq7RUdBTTu4YiXHumh77C60+AN46qdoP1DHcTds+x BFQ3MZw3nJ4+b/g+l8Pkg4jaDydh/AtnYQtPJtSeEQsNs5QB0rEx2DBmZ4BR9ZD7/Dna Vz3+vyN5FvzlNjumxodJXcjlMsipsQvinAAzHBKo9xbiiajcV4g4BM6zWnvF1K4YQKWO MjTgncCkQtNbwnHsJxBIO+oiZmdVWmbjbLtEfSJBSNM1/wwMvoTGHEYzFM4xa+DzpCwA 0o16jtAIOpOxvbKaX9CiPrFXQKYuo/QvzJGGlMl+XF5weKQMe3TDl8g3EMmX9GifM3ga ISKg== 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=7DJFpFT+M61LIr/9pPfEsAsFGxGe0TN/S/etgDHxSFw=; b=e3r0I8OrUAIPnxAGuc5upLwEbsetbCh8Rar3W18y8H3jvUPHwDvA3dgW6H2qfq/UHu COnHJCghKdLYqBx0QSDR/kx8Kfo2Y1f5QW4ozLFfYVPpuaanj4mA3h9hOOUsKSdLo98d QE8VCr54wyGxXwAnYVeSrAuiFCRG90NQyBjOVnXf6HtFKAHWusjJK4ZIyy8IsTX6CmGv gjJ3riYXgY2MSNcwpJxhnFIx7aXTD7QPhghdr7R2XTmt/14xeFQMZ9aaGM3yfjazrAHZ DXjRlqvvxcE4Bq/Dd53xQNa1hw8kPDOOL3PjgMA9Mu0QC5cs7AyZFJQFi0Uo3hppZ/My LoWw== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora8hLi3Qh+4YF1cG1JwLYzUlGFASxUi/po1p2wGs2evwx3RX8Y5E gxEtYlem990Qbxr1TNWam2H1M4G+j4T9/pihap0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1vpg8ip2LF9MucxZz/Co1+sh3TZk/FknJqF+2EP4UwvEqP6a5z6gJzKq7AsRvWxDCqweUPRtn7Ias1tIMOk15s= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:b153:b0:f8:7602:8408 with SMTP id a19-20020a056870b15300b000f876028408mr3269559oal.73.1655233156100; Tue, 14 Jun 2022 11:59:16 -0700 (PDT) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: regressions@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220614000052.GA727153@bhelgaas> In-Reply-To: <20220614000052.GA727153@bhelgaas> From: Jim Quinlan Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 14:59:02 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] PCI: brcmstb: Revert subdevice regulator stuff To: Bjorn Helgaas Cc: Florian Fainelli , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Cyril Brulebois , Nicolas Saenz Julienne , bcm-kernel-feedback-list , linux-pci , regressions@lists.linux.dev, Bjorn Helgaas Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 8:00 PM Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 10:06:12AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: > > On 5/11/22 13:39, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 01:24:55PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: > > > > On 5/11/22 13:18, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > > > From: Bjorn Helgaas > > > > > > > > > > Cyril reported that 830aa6f29f07 ("PCI: brcmstb: Split brcm_pcie_setup() > > > > > into two funcs"), which appeared in v5.17-rc1, broke booting on the > > > > > Raspberry Pi Compute Module 4. Revert 830aa6f29f07 and subsequent patches > > > > > for now. > > > > > > > > How about we get a chance to fix this? Where, when and how was this even > > > > reported? > > > > > > Sorry, I forgot to cc you, that's my fault: > > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/CABhMZUWjZCwK1_qT2ghTSu2dguJBzBTpiTqKohyA72OSGMsaeg@mail.gmail.com > > > > > > If you come up with a fix, I'll drop the reverts, of course. > > > What is even better is that meanwhile there was already a candidate fix > > proposed on May 18th, and a v2 on May 28th, so still an alternative to the > > reverts making it to Linus' tree, or so I thought. > > I hoped for a fix, but neither of those seemed to be clearly better. > > > - the history for pcie-brcmstb.c is now looking super ugly because we have 4 > > commits getting reverted and if we were to add back the original feature > > being added now what? Do we come up with reverts of reverts, or the modified > > (with the fix) original commits applied on top, are not we going to sign > > ourselves for another 13 or so round of patches before we all agree on the > > solution? > > I agree on the ugliness and I try hard to avoid that. In this case I > waited too long after the regression was discovered, hoping for a fix > that was better than the revert. And I should have asked for > trade-offs between the revert and the the CM4 regression. > > > - we could have just fixed this with proper communication from the get go > > about the regression in the first place, which remains the failure in > > communicating appropriately with driver authors/maintainers > > I apologized earlier for omitting you when the regression was > discovered, and I'm still sorry. > > > I appreciate that as a maintainer you are very sensitive to regressions and > > want to be responsive and responsible but this is not leaving just a > > slightest chance to right a wrong. Can we not do that again please? > > Cyril opened the bugzilla April 30 and I forwarded it to linux-pci and > to Jim (but not you; again, I'm sorry for that omission) on May 2. > From my perspective we had almost a month to push this forward, but we > didn't quite make it. Hello Bjorn, Can you elaborate this? On May 18 I submitted v1, a viable fix. At no point did you say "you need to get v2 in ASAP because I am planning on reverting the entire original patchset in N days". If I had known this was the situation, I could have had you a v2 on May 19th, but as it was I let the v1 email review thread die out before submitting v2. The original patchset was and is controversial, as it is basically a square peg that does not fit nicely into a round Linux hole. It took 11 versions of following reviewers' suggestions until it was accepted. And now it has been reverted, I am wondering if it will ever be let in again or whether I should even try. Regards, Jim Quinlan Broadcom STB > > I posted the reverts May 11, but I did not realize the regression to > you and other users they would cause. I apologize for that. > > Bjorn