On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 at 16:25, quic_zijuhu <quic_zijuhu@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 4/24/2024 10:19 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 at 16:08, Luiz Augusto von Dentz > > <luiz.dentz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Bartosz, > >> > >> On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 10:00 AM Bartosz Golaszewski > >> <bartosz.golaszewski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 at 15:53, quic_zijuhu <quic_zijuhu@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Please slow down here. Zijun's patch works and Bartosz's patch does not. > >>>>>>> I don't think Zijun means any ill intent. I am replying to Bartosz's > >>>>>>> patch right now. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Ok, that is great feedback, so I might be picking up the Zijun v7 set > >>>>>> if we don't find any major problems with it. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Luiz, > >>>>> > >>>>> Please consider my alternative[1] also tested by Wren. Zijun's usage > >>>>> of GPIO API is wrong. > >>>>> > >>>> why is it wrong ? > >>>> > >>> > >>> I have already told you that at least three times. But whatever, let > >>> me repeat again: gpiod_get_optional() returns NULL if the given GPIO > >>> is not assigned to the device in question OR a pointer to a valid GPIO > >>> descriptor. Anything else returned by it is an error and the driver > >>> must abort probe(). > >> > >> Ok, but there are other fixes on top of it: > >> > >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/bluetooth/patch/1713932807-19619-3-git-send-email-quic_zijuhu@xxxxxxxxxxx/ > >> > >> I guess that could go in but it would really help if you guys could > >> work together so we don't have more competing solutions. > >> > > > > These threads with their 7 patch versions from Zijun within 2 days or > > so have become very chaotic. Let me summarize: there are two > > regressions: one caused by my commit 6845667146a2 ("Bluetooth: > > hci_qca: Fix NULL vs IS_ERR_OR_NULL check in qca_serdev_probe") and a > > second caused by Krzysztof's commit 272970be3dab ("Bluetooth: hci_qca: > > Fix driver shutdown on closed serdev"). The patch I linked here is how > > I propose to fix my regression only. These fixes don't seem to > > conflict with one another. > > > it is not conflict issue, from my perspective, you fix are wrong. > do you see my patch change log? > > > We (Krzysztof and I) have provided feedback to Zijun but he refused to > > address it and instead kept on resending his patches every couple > > hours. Zijun's patch 1/2 proposed to revert my commit 6845667146a2. I > > disagreed and proposed a way forward by fixing the regression. This > > fix was incorrect as pointed out by Wren, so I submitted v2 which > > works. > > > v2 is not right from my point as i commented with your solution. > > you don't answer my questions commented within your solution. > > what is your question i don't answer? > > > Bartosz > Luiz, This is an example of how Zijun will borrow any attempt at meaningful communication under a heap of incomprehensible emails. Krzysztof has already given up and I think I will stop too now. As the GPIO maintainer I suggest you take my fix for this regression. I can't make you though and I've already wasted way too much time on it. Your call. Bartosz
