W dniu 30.03.2022 o 12:44, Thorsten Leemhuis pisze:
On 30.03.22 12:35, Piotr Chmura wrote:
W dniu 30.03.2022 o 11:55, Thorsten Leemhuis pisze:
On 29.03.22 21:21, Robert Schlabbach wrote:
the patch linked in the bugzilla ticket:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-media/6f84b7f4-3ede-ae55-e99b-a9d4108c80e2@xxxxxxxxx/
should indeed fix the issue.
Ahh, the comment mentioning it was added shortly after I sent my mail.
#regzbot monitor:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-media/6f84b7f4-3ede-ae55-e99b-a9d4108c80e2@xxxxxxxxx/
Adding Piotr, the patches' author to the CC, who also replied.
BTW: that patch is afaics missing a Fixes tag specifying the culprit and
a `Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # 5.17.x` tag to make sure it's quickly
backported to the stable tree, as among others explained here:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/handling-regressions.rst
Sorry for my inconvenience.
Don't worry, everything fine. In a case like...
I just fixed my device and wanted to share
solution with the "world". I'm not familiar with all kernel development
convention (yet).
...this someone else should point such details out to the submitter
and/or add these tags when applying the patch.
@Robert: Do you know which commit causes this regression and could tell
us for a proper Fixes: tag?
Fixes: 1c35ba3bf97213538b82067acc0f23f18e652226
Cheers,
Piotr Chmura
Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)
P.S.: As the Linux kernel's regression tracker I'm getting a lot of
reports on my table. I can only look briefly into most of them and lack
knowledge about most of the areas they concern. I thus unfortunately
will sometimes get things wrong or miss something important. I hope
that's not the case here; if you think it is, don't hesitate to tell me
in a public reply, it's in everyone's interest to set the public record
straight.
The error was that the rom_id and required
fields were swapped in the table, so the non-zero rom_id was taken as a
"true" required boolean value, thus incorrectly evaluating that the
chip requires a firmware file to operate when in fact it does not.
I have tested the patch and found it worked for me. But I do not know
how to push this further along:
https://patchwork.linuxtv.org/project/linux-media/patch/6f84b7f4-3ede-ae55-e99b-a9d4108c80e2@xxxxxxxxx/
Mauro, what's up here? The patch fixes a regression and thus afaics
should quickly find its way towards mainline to get it into the stable
tree, as explained in the (bran new) document linked above.
Ciao, Thorsten
Gesendet: Dienstag, 29. März 2022 um 10:33 Uhr
Von: "Thorsten Leemhuis" <regressions@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
An: "Antti Palosaari" <crope@xxxxxx>, "Mauro Carvalho Chehab"
<mchehab+huawei@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Robert Schlabbach" <robert_s@xxxxxxx>
Cc: "regressions@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <regressions@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
az0123456@xxxxxx, "Linux Media Mailing List"
<linux-media@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Linux Kernel Mailing List"
<linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Betreff: Bug 215726 - si2157.c: mention name of the missing firmware
file
Hi, this is your Linux kernel regression tracker.
I noticed a regression report in bugzilla.kernel.org that afaics nobody
acted upon since it was reported about a week ago, that's why I decided
to forward it to the lists and all people that seemed to be relevant
here. To quote from https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215726 :
I get the following error messages when trying to use si2157.ko in
linux 5.17:
si2157 13-0060: found a 'Silicon Labs Si2157-A30 ROM 0x50'
si2157 13-0060: Can't continue without a firmware
I did work in linux 5.16.16 without a firmware file. Unfortunately
the driver does not tell me the name of the missing firmware file.
Could somebody take a look into this? Or was this discussed somewhere
else already? Or even fixed?
