Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] mtd: cfi_cmdset_0002: Use chip_ready() for write on S29GL064N

From: Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@leemhuis.info>
To: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
Cc: Tokunori Ikegami <ikegami.t@gmail.com>,
	linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
	Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@pengutronix.de>,
	stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] mtd: cfi_cmdset_0002: Use chip_ready() for write on S29GL064N
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2022 13:51:10 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <f950bfe4-9c8d-199d-120f-cc8c1ecca8e3@leemhuis.info> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220321133529.2d3addaf@xps13>

On 21.03.22 13:35, Miquel Raynal wrote:
>
> regressions@leemhuis.info wrote on Mon, 21 Mar 2022 12:48:11 +0100:
> 
>> On 16.03.22 16:54, Tokunori Ikegami wrote:
>>> As pointed out by this bug report [1], buffered writes are now broken on
>>> S29GL064N. This issue comes from a rework which switched from using chip_good()
>>> to chip_ready(), because DQ true data 0xFF is read on S29GL064N and an error
>>> returned by chip_good(). One way to solve the issue is to revert the change
>>> partially to use chip_ready for S29GL064N.
>>>
>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/b687c259-6413-26c9-d4c9-b3afa69ea124@pengutronix.de/  
>>
>> Why did you switch from the documented format for links you added on my
>> request (see
>> https://lore.kernel.org/stable/f1b44e87-e457-7783-d46e-0d577cea3b72@leemhuis.info/
>>
>> ) to v2 to something else that is not recognized by tools and scripts
>> that rely on proper link tags? You are making my and maybe other peoples
>> life unnecessary hard. :-((
>>
>> FWIW, the proper style should support footnote style like this:
>>
>> Link:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/b687c259-6413-26c9-d4c9-b3afa69ea124@pengutronix.de/
>>  [1]
>>
>> Ciao, Thorsten
>>
>> #regzbot ^backmonitor:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/b687c259-6413-26c9-d4c9-b3afa69ea124@pengutronix.de/
>>
> 
> Because today's requirement from maintainers is to provide a Link
> tag that points to the mail discussion of the patch being applied.

That can be an additional Link tag, that is done all the time.

> I
> then asked to use the above form instead to point to the bug report
> because I don't see the point of having a "Link" tag for it?

But it's not your own project, we are all working with thousands of
people together on this project on various different fronts. That needs
coordination, as some things otherwise become hard or impossible. That's
why we have documentation that explains how to do some things. Not
following it just because you don't like it is not helpful and in this
case makes my life as a volunteer a lot harder.

If you don't like the approach explained by the documentation, submit a
patch adjusting the documentation and then we can talk about this. But
until that is applied please stick to the format explained by the
documentation.

Ciao, Thorsten