Hi Guillaume, On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 9:13 AM Guillaume Tucker <guillaume.tucker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 28/05/2019 00:38, kernelci.org bot wrote: > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > * This automated bisection report was sent to you on the basis * > > * that you may be involved with the breaking commit it has * > > * found. No manual investigation has been done to verify it, * > > * and the root cause of the problem may be somewhere else. * > > * Hope this helps! * > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > > > linusw/for-next boot bisection: v5.2-rc1-8-g73a790c68d7e on rk3288-veyron-jaq > > > > Summary: > > Start: 73a790c68d7e Merge branch 'devel' into for-next > > Details: https://kernelci.org/boot/id/5cebf03d59b514dd627a3629 > > Plain log: https://storage.kernelci.org//linusw/for-next/v5.2-rc1-8-g73a790c68d7e/arm/multi_v7_defconfig/gcc-8/lab-collabora/boot-rk3288-veyron-jaq.txt > > HTML log: https://storage.kernelci.org//linusw/for-next/v5.2-rc1-8-g73a790c68d7e/arm/multi_v7_defconfig/gcc-8/lab-collabora/boot-rk3288-veyron-jaq.html > > Result: 28694e009e51 thermal: rockchip: fix up the tsadc pinctrl setting error > > > > Checks: > > revert: PASS > > verify: PASS > > > > Parameters: > > Tree: linusw > > URL: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linusw/linux-gpio.git/ > > Branch: for-next > > Target: rk3288-veyron-jaq > > CPU arch: arm > > Lab: lab-collabora > > Compiler: gcc-8 > > Config: multi_v7_defconfig > > Test suite: boot > > > > Breaking commit found: > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > commit 28694e009e512451ead5519dd801f9869acb1f60 > > Author: Elaine Zhang <zhangqing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Tue Apr 30 18:09:44 2019 +0800 > > > > thermal: rockchip: fix up the tsadc pinctrl setting error > > This commit has now been reverted in mainline. Would it be OK > for you to rebase your for-next branch on v5.2-rc2 or cherry-pick > the revert to avoid recurring bisections? > > Ideally this should have been fixed or reverted in mainline > before v5.2-rc1 was released, or even earlier when this was first > found in -next on 13th May. Unfortunately it was overlooked and > then spread to other branches like yours. I'm afraid it's gonna spread to even more for-next branches, as most subsystem maintainers base their for-next branch on the previous rc1 release. Typically maintainers do not rebase their for-next branches, and do not cherry-pick fixes, unless they are critical for their subsystem. So you can expect this to show up in e.g. the m68k for-next branch soon... Can't you mark this as a known issue, to prevent spending cycles on the same bisection, and sending out more bisection reports for the same issue? Thanks! Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds _______________________________________________ Linux-rockchip mailing list Linux-rockchip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip
