Re: [PATCH] gpio: Request interrupts after IRQ is initialized

From: Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@leemhuis.info>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Cc: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>,
	firew4lker <firew4lker@gmail.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>,
	Shreeya Patel <shreeya.patel@collabora.com>,
	"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
	open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Basavaraj Natikar <Basavaraj.Natikar@amd.com>,
	Richard.Gong@amd.com, Stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: Request interrupts after IRQ is initialized
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2022 17:29:37 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <d61f561c-cccd-6d48-cc2a-2eb83df6925a@leemhuis.info> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75Vd1VKeGx2EJnKnSBf-DvnPPajDNs=+kQ1f6j5JU8hNLMg@mail.gmail.com>

On 18.04.22 16:17, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 4:58 PM Thorsten Leemhuis
> <regressions@leemhuis.info> wrote:
>>
>> On 18.04.22 13:42, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 7:34 AM Mario Limonciello
>>> <mario.limonciello@amd.com> 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.

Since some time now, yes, but the "Link:" tags are way older and used to
 link to all sorts of places that are relevant.

> Having Link from the patch thread
> (and not always the one with the discussion) as well as link to the
> issue will be confusing.

Yup, but that's how it is for years already (and in the muscle memory of
some -- that's why I might make sense to teach b4 to set something else,
but that's a different story). Linus himself does it like that. Recent
commits showing that are for example 901c7280ca0d or 0313bc278dac. And
for links bug trackers, too, as 80d47f5de5e3 or 14e3e989f6a5 show.

>> 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.

Yeah, but we are in that mess already and people inventing different
tags; some of the DRM people for example use(d?) "References", but there
were others iirc.

>> 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 :-)

Okay, thx, had just been wondering if people are used to it from some
platform.

Ciao, Thorsten