On 6/13/22 17:00, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
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.
Humm, OK.
- 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.
Yes, I suppose that is fair, ideally this would have been an one liner
but it was not quite that simple.
- 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.
Apologies accepted :)
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.
This is fine, I am not technically the driver author but Jim and I work
together and I can always prioritize his work on upstream versus what we
do downstream. As the "new" Raspberry Pi maintainer however I do care as
well about not introducing regressions for Pi users, even if upstream is
a niche on those platforms.
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.
OK, thanks for your response, this makes me feel better.
--
Florian
