On 01/07/2024 09:16, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:
[CCing the other net maintainers]
On 25.06.24 10:51, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
Il 25/06/24 07:56, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) ha
scritto:
On 17.06.24 13:08, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:
On 17/06/2024 11:33, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)
wrote:
[...]
It looks more and more like we are stuck here (or was there progress and
I just missed it?) while the 6.10 final is slowly getting closer. Hence:
AngeloGioacchino, should we ask the net maintainers to revert
868ff5f4944aa9 ("net: dsa: mt7530-mdio: read PHY address of switch from
device tree") for now to resolve this regression? Reminder, there is
nothing wrong with that commit per se afaik, it just exposes a problem
that needs to be fixed first before it can be reapplied.
To be clear on this: I asked for the commit to be fixed such that it
guarantees
backwards compatibility with older device trees.
If no fix comes,
I haven't see any since that mail, did you? If not, I think...
then I guess that we should ask them to revert this commit
until a fix is available.
...it's time to ask them for the revert to resolve this for -rc7 (and
avoid a last minute revert), or what do you think?
This is quite frustrating. I absolutely won't consent to a revert. I've
spent a great amount of time and effort explaining why this is neither
necessary nor a good approach in this email thread. I'm not going to accept
a revert due to the other side's failure to communicate, which will create
unnecessary work for me to do. It is ridiculous to demand a change in a
Linux driver before accepting a device tree patch.
Arınç
