On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 at 10:25, Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 12:11 AM Mathieu Poirier > <mathieu.poirier@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 at 02:30, Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > The patch breaks MTK SCP when working with legacy SCP firmware. We're > > > aware of it and will upgrade the devices' kernel and SCP firmware > > > carefully. Other than that, AFAICT, no other devices in the wild are > > > using this driver. > > > > > > > This is the exact same patch that you sent here [1], that I commented > > on, and that you agreed with my assessment. > > > > What do you want me to do here? What am I missing? > > Yes, this is a resend patch because only the first 2 patches in the > previous series have merged. > The first two patches were merged because they made sense. > I agree the patch is aggressive which would break machines with old > SCP firmware. But AFAICT, no other devices are using this driver; and > we'll take care of our devices to upgrade SCP firmware first and then > kernel drivers. Thus, ideally, no real device breakage is expected. > How do you know about all the systems out there that use this SoC? Moreover why would the original author have implemented the driver the way they did if it didn't work for them? > Would the patch be acceptable? Definitely not. > Or would you suggest we consider > backward-compatible anyway (even if with the context mentioned above)? That is the only way this patch will get merged.
