On 01.07.24 09:44, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:
> 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. [...]
Reminder: try to not see a revert as a bad thing. It's just means "not
ready yet, revert and we'll try again later" -- that's actually
something Linus wrote just a few hours ago:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wgQMOscLeeA3QXOs97xOz_CTxdqJjpC20tJ-7bUdHWtSA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
Ciao, Thorsten
