On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 01:37:02AM +0000, Hongxing Zhu wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: 2022年8月30日 23:06 > > To: Hongxing Zhu <hongxing.zhu@xxxxxxx> > > Cc: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; l.stach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx; lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx; vkoul@xxxxxxxxxx; Marcel > > Ziswiler <marcel.ziswiler@xxxxxxxxxxx>; kishon@xxxxxx; > > linux-pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dl-linux-imx > > <linux-imx@xxxxxxx>; kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-phy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] Fix the wrong order of phy callbacks > > > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 07:50:55AM +0000, Hongxing Zhu wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Sent: 2022年8月30日 15:16 > > > > To: Hongxing Zhu <hongxing.zhu@xxxxxxx>; l.stach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > > > bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx; lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx; vkoul@xxxxxxxxxx; > > > > Marcel Ziswiler <marcel.ziswiler@xxxxxxxxxxx>; kishon@xxxxxx > > > > Cc: linux-pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > > > dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@xxxxxxx>; kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > > > linux-phy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] Fix the wrong order of phy callbacks > > > > The above quoting style makes it harder than necessary to follow conversation. > > See hints at: > > > > > > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wiki > > pedia.org%2Fwiki%2FPosting_style%23Interleaved_style&data=05%7C01 > > %7Chongxing.zhu%40nxp.com%7C70f38214c8f94c5932b408da8a991996%7C > > 686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C637974687433589209 > > %7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLC > > JBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ceZmDd > > sNeC9nU6qmt2qXR03fQn33vY%2FqvBIYzeWW7mk%3D&reserved=0 > > > > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpeople. > > kernel.org%2Ftglx%2Fnotes-about-netiquette&data=05%7C01%7Chongxi > > ng.zhu%40nxp.com%7C70f38214c8f94c5932b408da8a991996%7C686ea1d3b > > c2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C637974687433589209%7CUnkno > > wn%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1ha > > WwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=PkhpGGf7FcvsQTjc0 > > hUMpr9Q4JVKeFoLR4foA6zt6jg%3D&reserved=0 > > > > The ideal thing would be something like this, where there's a single line for > > each sender: > > > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 07:50:55AM +0000, Hongxing Zhu wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2022, at 03:16PM, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: > > > > On 30.08.22 05:47, Hongxing Zhu wrote: > > > > > Do you mean to squash this fix to the preview series? > > > > > I'm afraid that it's not easy to do that. > > > > > Because there are a lot of pci-imx6 code changes after > > > > > commit: 1aa97b002258 ("phy: freescale: pcie: Initialize the imx8 > > > > > pcie standalone phy driver"). > > > > > > > > The way I understand it, if a bisect ends up between your two > > > > patches, i.MX8M PCIe will be broken, whereas it worked before. I > > > > thus wonder if we shouldn't instead squash this series here into a > > > > single patch. > > > > > > Yes, it's a possible case when do the bisect. > > > Since these changes are belong to different git repo. > > > > I don't understand the point about different git repos. Patch 1/2 touches > > drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-imx6.c, patch 2/2 touches > > drivers/phy/freescale/phy-fsl-imx8m-pcie.c. They're in different directories, > > of course, but are in the same Linux kernel source repo. > > > > They're maintained by different people, but we can easily deal with that by > > getting an ack from one and merging via the other. > > > > > It will bring maintain difficulties if these two patches are squashed > > > into a single one. > > > It's difficult to make a choice. > > > > What maintenance difficulty do you see here? I think it looks > > *easier* if these are squashed -- that would avoid the possibility of backporting > > one without the other, which would certainly be a problem. > > > > If a bisect lands after patch 1/2 but before 2/2, it looks like i.MX8M will break > > unnecessarily. > > > > I think Ahmad is right that patches 1/2 and 2/2 should be squashed into a > > single patch to avoid this bisection hole. > Hi Bjorn: > Thanks for your comments. > My descriptions are not accurate enough. These two files are maintained by > different people, I'm afraid to bring troubles to the maintainers if > I squash these two patch into a single one before. > Now, I understood the situation. > I'm glad to squash them to avoid the bisetion hole. Are you sending an updated patch ? Thanks, Lorenzo
