From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pj1-f52.google.com (mail-pj1-f52.google.com [209.85.216.52]) (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 CA1D67A for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2022 16:16:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pj1-f52.google.com with SMTP id gc3-20020a17090b310300b001e33092c737so9499971pjb.3 for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2022 09:16:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject:content-language:to :cc:references:from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZrPOrbduk5agLBkDaiS0XxQj4fFOrAQ9O+7QcyJaVuo=; b=P1/uHyqFJqst4YGHH+0ciDBVx5bBINo7Yb1VjVdwLtjD1W3Q1xfHe/nTZWfcl7A3pC xKjLknwo6UO5awJeSd4lkszoExCu3o6jZ5+CYYxsl2r2Tbw3/lsKNvSgEasdpbmfV3h9 zAMfM194B895hZfV/2omJy+FqOvSKR8FnCO6F8UL6u4jAoJPzB2ZYuwewqU1FWNRyrqP YFbHYyqdwyrSwyLFA8wO8mnRsx8zEeGZ/OwC+/fjs1lc0ohUO6v48+0f4ehMBpQhc2H/ BZDOBEUjSj2NGUtdXOtz1aPoHT+QDTzc833tu2n9clr8bvVVt7QunEFP5WayD5UDLlp6 h+Eg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:cc:references:from:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZrPOrbduk5agLBkDaiS0XxQj4fFOrAQ9O+7QcyJaVuo=; b=Fc9WRNZDFozFhcGHWm1JezkNBue+TL3Gf6ca2I3Zr2nkoV2naKQQaoKHCmTSJoNBzJ hdfwOHiBarhQVGVBKFfJkiyIfySteIYR8Xo7tIYcfTRqoDZ/dYzW76Km321SwfjXhrUt gwajQtUR7+QIrnoaOxlsSUQ6+ewodTx0rWSZy5IfVO8mSERcJHI22DwtLOGExWKVJu2g w0+r4YeNKNscj9Y97vhHM0/BPGb3jT80YRWUBMq1mQCBJJeQp/nFYkGYxhSNuZ+O78eN DaUcYYbwFgayPddgquiLSlAUbnqCoepj7AOdz6THqLrRS5T3oxp80UXuOspbf/uTDoqW MFBg== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora87jIf2eFRAvynwNBN5zraMcTS0Bzktts3q/p3cIUUurVZNovVp lKZJM4/9jkUJpslCrt0HBlc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1vNeQNegOiexKyfdLxr2Qw5Cz9AjLYL4jGo74x9dpvG4s3ac4k4YQUJx2Pxn4zB+c5LYxdkOQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:3654:b0:1ea:4540:d32 with SMTP id nh20-20020a17090b365400b001ea45400d32mr5345414pjb.92.1655223402172; Tue, 14 Jun 2022 09:16:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.67.48.245] ([192.19.223.252]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id gg6-20020a17090b0a0600b001df51dd0c93sm3310826pjb.1.2022.06.14.09.16.40 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 14 Jun 2022 09:16:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <7b2d26e2-e4a5-b5f2-4e57-a5b102ed3f4a@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 09:16:40 -0700 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/91.9.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] PCI: brcmstb: Revert subdevice regulator stuff Content-Language: en-US To: Bjorn Helgaas , Florian Fainelli Cc: Jim Quinlan , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Cyril Brulebois , Nicolas Saenz Julienne , bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, regressions@lists.linux.dev, Bjorn Helgaas References: <20220614000052.GA727153@bhelgaas> From: Florian Fainelli In-Reply-To: <20220614000052.GA727153@bhelgaas> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 6/13/22 17:00, 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. Humm, OK. > >> - 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. Yes, I suppose that is fair, ideally this would have been an one liner but it was not quite that simple. > >> - 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. Apologies accepted :) > >> 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. This is fine, I am not technically the driver author but Jim and I work together and I can always prioritize his work on upstream versus what we do downstream. As the "new" Raspberry Pi maintainer however I do care as well about not introducing regressions for Pi users, even if upstream is a niche on those platforms. > > 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. > OK, thanks for your response, this makes me feel better. -- Florian