On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 10:06:12AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 5/11/22 13:39, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 01:24:55PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> > > On 5/11/22 13:18, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > > From: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > Cyril reported that 830aa6f29f07 ("PCI: brcmstb: Split brcm_pcie_setup()
> > > > into two funcs"), which appeared in v5.17-rc1, broke booting on the
> > > > Raspberry Pi Compute Module 4. Revert 830aa6f29f07 and subsequent patches
> > > > for now.
> > >
> > > How about we get a chance to fix this? Where, when and how was this even
> > > reported?
> >
> > Sorry, I forgot to cc you, that's my fault:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/r/CABhMZUWjZCwK1_qT2ghTSu2dguJBzBTpiTqKohyA72OSGMsaeg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > If you come up with a fix, I'll drop the reverts, of course.
> What is even better is that meanwhile there was already a candidate fix
> proposed on May 18th, and a v2 on May 28th, so still an alternative to the
> reverts making it to Linus' tree, or so I thought.
I hoped for a fix, but neither of those seemed to be clearly better.
> - the history for pcie-brcmstb.c is now looking super ugly because we have 4
> commits getting reverted and if we were to add back the original feature
> being added now what? Do we come up with reverts of reverts, or the modified
> (with the fix) original commits applied on top, are not we going to sign
> ourselves for another 13 or so round of patches before we all agree on the
> solution?
I agree on the ugliness and I try hard to avoid that. In this case I
waited too long after the regression was discovered, hoping for a fix
that was better than the revert. And I should have asked for
trade-offs between the revert and the the CM4 regression.
> - we could have just fixed this with proper communication from the get go
> about the regression in the first place, which remains the failure in
> communicating appropriately with driver authors/maintainers
I apologized earlier for omitting you when the regression was
discovered, and I'm still sorry.
> I appreciate that as a maintainer you are very sensitive to regressions and
> want to be responsive and responsible but this is not leaving just a
> slightest chance to right a wrong. Can we not do that again please?
Cyril opened the bugzilla April 30 and I forwarded it to linux-pci and
to Jim (but not you; again, I'm sorry for that omission) on May 2.
>From my perspective we had almost a month to push this forward, but we
didn't quite make it.
I posted the reverts May 11, but I did not realize the regression to
you and other users they would cause. I apologize for that.
Bjorn
