Bug 215726 - si2157.c: mention name of the missing firmware file

Bug 215726 - si2157.c: mention name of the missing firmware file

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

Hi, this is your Linux kernel regression tracker.

I noticed a regression report in bugzilla.kernel.org that afaics nobody
acted upon since it was reported about a week ago, that's why I decided
to forward it to the lists and all people that seemed to be relevant
here. To quote from https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215726 :

> I get the following error messages when trying to use si2157.ko in linux 5.17:
> si2157 13-0060: found a 'Silicon Labs Si2157-A30 ROM 0x50'
> si2157 13-0060: Can't continue without a firmware
> I did work in linux 5.16.16 without a firmware file. Unfortunately the driver does not tell me the name of the missing firmware file.

Could somebody take a look into this? Or was this discussed somewhere
else already? Or even fixed?

Anyway, to get this tracked:

#regzbot introduced: v5.16..v5.17
#regzbot from: az0123456@gmx.de <az0123456@gmx.de>
#regzbot title: media: si2157.c: mention name of the missing firmware file
#regzbot link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215726

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.

-- 
Additional information about regzbot:

If you want to know more about regzbot, check out its web-interface, the
getting start guide, and the references documentation:

https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/regzbot/
https://gitlab.com/knurd42/regzbot/-/blob/main/docs/getting_started.md
https://gitlab.com/knurd42/regzbot/-/blob/main/docs/reference.md

The last two documents will explain how you can interact with regzbot
yourself if your want to.

Hint for reporters: when reporting a regression it's in your interest to
CC the regression list and tell regzbot about the issue, as that ensures
the regression makes it onto the radar of the Linux kernel's regression
tracker -- that's in your interest, as it ensures your report won't fall
through the cracks unnoticed.

Hint for developers: you normally don't need to care about regzbot once
it's involved. Fix the issue as you normally would, just remember to
include 'Link:' tag in the patch descriptions pointing to all reports
about the issue. This has been expected from developers even before
regzbot showed up for reasons explained in
'Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst' and
'Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst'.

Re: Bug 215726 - si2157.c: mention name of the missing firmware file

[Piotr Chmura]

It's supposed to be fixed by:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-media/trinity-6009a608-b0ff-4e1a-9b91-ba4a97f10324-1648057812747@3c-app-gmx-bs71/T/#t

Test it please.

Best regards,
Piotr Chmura

W dniu 29.03.2022 o 10:33, Thorsten Leemhuis pisze:
> Hi, this is your Linux kernel regression tracker.
>
> I noticed a regression report in bugzilla.kernel.org that afaics nobody
> acted upon since it was reported about a week ago, that's why I decided
> to forward it to the lists and all people that seemed to be relevant
> here. To quote from https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215726 :
>
>> I get the following error messages when trying to use si2157.ko in linux 5.17:
>> si2157 13-0060: found a 'Silicon Labs Si2157-A30 ROM 0x50'
>> si2157 13-0060: Can't continue without a firmware
>> I did work in linux 5.16.16 without a firmware file. Unfortunately the driver does not tell me the name of the missing firmware file.
> Could somebody take a look into this? Or was this discussed somewhere
> else already? Or even fixed?
>
> Anyway, to get this tracked:
>
> #regzbot introduced: v5.16..v5.17
> #regzbot from: az0123456@gmx.de <az0123456@gmx.de>
> #regzbot title: media: si2157.c: mention name of the missing firmware file
> #regzbot link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215726
>
> 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.
>

Re: Bug 215726 - si2157.c: mention name of the missing firmware file

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 30.03.22 17:47, Piotr Chmura wrote:
> W dniu 30.03.2022 o 12:44, Thorsten Leemhuis pisze:
>> On 30.03.22 12:35, Piotr Chmura wrote:
>>> W dniu 30.03.2022 o 11:55, Thorsten Leemhuis pisze:
>>>> On 29.03.22 21:21, Robert Schlabbach wrote:
>>>>> the patch linked in the bugzilla ticket:
>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-media/6f84b7f4-3ede-ae55-e99b-a9d4108c80e2@gmail.com/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> should indeed fix the issue.
>>>> Ahh, the comment mentioning it was added shortly after I sent my mail.
>>>> #regzbot monitor:
>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-media/6f84b7f4-3ede-ae55-e99b-a9d4108c80e2@gmail.com/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Adding Piotr, the patches' author to the CC, who also replied.
>>>>
>>>> BTW: that patch is afaics missing a Fixes tag specifying the culprit
>>>> and
>>>> a `Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 5.17.x` tag to make sure it's quickly
>>>> backported to the stable tree, as among others explained here:
>>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/handling-regressions.rst
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Sorry for my inconvenience.
>> Don't worry, everything fine. In a case like...
>>
>>> I just fixed my device and wanted to share
>>> solution with the "world". I'm not familiar with all kernel development
>>> convention (yet).
>> ...this someone else should point such details out to the submitter
>> and/or add these tags when applying the patch.
>>
>> @Robert: Do you know which commit causes this regression and could tell
>> us for a proper Fixes: tag?
> Fixes: 1c35ba3bf97213538b82067acc0f23f18e652226

Just FYI, proper fixes tag usage is described here:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html

Hence in this case it should look like this:

Fixes: 1c35ba3bf972 ("media: si2157: use a different namespace for
firmware")

At this point it likely would be good to submit a v2 of the patch with
that Fixes tag, the Tested-by tag from Robert, the CC for stable
backports, and Link: tags linking to all known reports about this
problem (also described in above document), e.g. like this:

Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215726
Link:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/5f660108-8812-383c-83e4-29ee0558d623@leemhuis.info/

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 introduced: 1c35ba3bf972

> Cheers,
> Piotr Chmura
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>>>> The error was that the rom_id and required
>>>>> fields were swapped in the table, so the non-zero rom_id was taken
>>>>> as a
>>>>> "true" required boolean value, thus incorrectly evaluating that the
>>>>> chip requires a firmware file to operate when in fact it does not.
>>>>> I have tested the patch and found it worked for me. But I do not know
>>>>> how to push this further along:
>>>>> https://patchwork.linuxtv.org/project/linux-media/patch/6f84b7f4-3ede-ae55-e99b-a9d4108c80e2@gmail.com/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Mauro, what's up here? The patch fixes a regression and thus afaics
>>>> should quickly find its way towards mainline to get it into the stable
>>>> tree, as explained in the (bran new) document linked above.
>>>>
>>>> Ciao, Thorsten
>>>>
>>>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 29. März 2022 um 10:33 Uhr
>>>>> Von: "Thorsten Leemhuis" <regressions@leemhuis.info>
>>>>> An: "Antti Palosaari" <crope@iki.fi>, "Mauro Carvalho Chehab"
>>>>> <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>, "Robert Schlabbach" <robert_s@gmx.net>
>>>>> Cc: "regressions@lists.linux.dev" <regressions@lists.linux.dev>,
>>>>> az0123456@gmx.de, "Linux Media Mailing List"
>>>>> <linux-media@vger.kernel.org>, "Linux Kernel Mailing List"
>>>>> <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
>>>>> Betreff: Bug 215726 - si2157.c: mention name of the missing firmware
>>>>> file
>>>>> Hi, this is your Linux kernel regression tracker.
>>>>>
>>>>> I noticed a regression report in bugzilla.kernel.org that afaics
>>>>> nobody
>>>>> acted upon since it was reported about a week ago, that's why I
>>>>> decided
>>>>> to forward it to the lists and all people that seemed to be relevant
>>>>> here. To quote from
>>>>> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215726 :
>>>>>
>>>>>> I get the following error messages when trying to use si2157.ko in
>>>>>> linux 5.17:
>>>>>> si2157 13-0060: found a 'Silicon Labs Si2157-A30 ROM 0x50'
>>>>>> si2157 13-0060: Can't continue without a firmware
>>>>>> I did work in linux 5.16.16 without a firmware file. Unfortunately
>>>>>> the driver does not tell me the name of the missing firmware file.
>>>>> Could somebody take a look into this? Or was this discussed somewhere
>>>>> else already? Or even fixed?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
> 
>