On 30.03.22 17:47, Piotr Chmura wrote: > 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 Just FYI, proper fixes tag usage is described here: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html Hence in this case it should look like this: Fixes: 1c35ba3bf972 ("media: si2157: use a different namespace for firmware") At this point it likely would be good to submit a v2 of the patch with that Fixes tag, the Tested-by tag from Robert, the CC for stable backports, and Link: tags linking to all known reports about this problem (also described in above document), e.g. like this: Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215726 Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/5f660108-8812-383c-83e4-29ee0558d623@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ 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. #regzbot introduced: 1c35ba3bf972 > 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? >>>>> >>>>> >>> > >
