From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from wp530.webpack.hosteurope.de (wp530.webpack.hosteurope.de [80.237.130.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE60D815 for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 07:13:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ip4d144895.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de ([77.20.72.149] helo=[192.168.66.200]); authenticated by wp530.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) id 1nQ27i-00078Q-8L; Fri, 04 Mar 2022 08:13:10 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2022 08:13:08 +0100 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: regressions@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.5.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Bartosz Golaszewski , Linus Walleij Cc: Marcelo Roberto Jimenez , stable , regressions@lists.linux.dev, "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" , Thierry Reding , Vidya Sagar , Geert Uytterhoeven , Stephen Rothwell , Edmond Chung , Andrew Chant , Will McVicker , Sergio Tanzilli References: <20211217153555.9413-1-marcelo.jimenez@gmail.com> From: Thorsten Leemhuis Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: Revert regression in sysfs-gpio (gpiolib.c) In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de;regressions@leemhuis.info;1646377994;cb89fc5c; X-HE-SMSGID: 1nQ27i-00078Q-8L Hi, this is your Linux kernel regression tracker. On 16.02.22 15:40, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 10:56 PM Linus Walleij wrote: >> >> On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 12:24 AM Marcelo Roberto Jimenez >> wrote: >>> On Sat, Feb 12, 2022 at 1:55 PM Linus Walleij wrote: >> >>>> I am curious about the usecases and how deeply you have built >>>> yourselves into this. >>> >>> I don't know if I understand what you mean, sorry. >> >> Why does the user need the sysfs ABI? What is it used for? >> >> I.e what is the actual use case? >> >>>>> In any case, the upstream file should be enough to test the issue reported here. >>>> >>>> The thing is that upstream isn't super happy that you have been >>>> making yourselves dependent on features that we are actively >>>> discouraging and then demanding that we support these features. >>> >>> Hum, demanding seems to be a strong word for what I am doing here. >>> >>> Deprecated should not mean broken. My point is: the API seems to be >>> currently broken. User space apps got broken, that's a fact. I even >>> took the time to bisect the kernel and show you which commit broke it. >>> So, no, I am not demanding. More like reporting and providing a >>> temporary solution to those with a similar problem. >>> >>> Maybe it is time to remove the API, but this is up to "upstream". >>> Leaving the API broken seems pointless and unproductive. >>> >>> Sorry for the "not super happiness of upstream", but maybe upstream >>> got me wrong. >>> >>> We are not "making ourselves dependent on features ...". The API was >>> there. We used it. Now it is deprecated, ok, we should move on. I got >>> the message. >> >> Ouch I deserved some slamming for this. >> >> I'm sorry if I came across as harsh :( >> >> I just don't know how to properly push for this. >> >> I have even pushed the option of the deprecated sysfs ABI >> behind the CONFIG_EXPERT option, which should mean that >> the kernel config has been made by someone who has checked >> the option "yes I am an expert I know what I am doing" >> yet failed to observe that this ABI is obsoleted since 5 years >> and hence failed to be an expert. >> >> Of course the ABI (not API really) needs to be fixed if we can find the >> problem. It's frustrating that fixing it seems to fix broken other >> features which are not deprecated, hence the annoyance on my >> part. >> > > I'm afraid we'll earn ourselves a good old LinusRant if we keep > pushing the character device as a solution to the problem here. > Marcelo is right after all: he used an existing user interface, the > interface broke, it must be fixed. > > I would prefer to find a solution that fixes Marcelo's issue while > keeping the offending patches in tree but it seems like the issue is > more complicated and will require some rework of the sysfs interface. > > In which case unless there are objections I lean towards reverting the > relevant commits. Sounds good to me, but that was two weeks ago and afaics nothing happened since then. Or did the discussion continue somewhere else? >>> And I will also tell the dev team that they must use the GPIO char dev >>> and libgpiod from now on and must port everything to it. And we will >>> likely have another group of people who are not super happy, but >>> that's life... :) >> >> I'm happy to hear this! Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat) P.S.: As the Linux kernel's regression tracker I'm getting a lot of reports on my table. I can only look briefly into most of them and lack knowledge about most of the areas they concern. I thus unfortunately will sometimes get things wrong or miss something important. I hope that's not the case here; if you think it is, don't hesitate to tell me in a public reply, it's in everyone's interest to set the public record straight. #regzbot poke