On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 02:36:01PM +0200, Dafna Hirschfeld wrote: > hi, thanks for the fast feedback > > On 30.09.21 14:25, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 02:07:00PM +0200, Dafna Hirschfeld wrote: > > > This reverts commit 04e6bb0d6bb127bac929fb35edd2dd01613c9520. > > Which is not what the commit message nor the paste of the full hash > > claimed :/ > What is the paste of the full hash? The above. > Since the second commit is only a warning fixes I thought it is cumbersome to > send two separate reverting patches. Should I? No, you should write a proper commit log with (like I said) a normal subject line - basically, follow the process in submitting-patches.rst. > > Do we have any analysis as to why? Do these devices use timing > > parameters in some way for example, or do the values written out to the > > device change in some way? > > You've provided no analysis here so it's hard to tell if this is just > > some random change that happens to change code generation slighly or if > > there's some actual reason why this might fix something. I'll note that > > as far as I can see there are no users of this API upstream so I'm > > guessing that you've got some out of tree consumer driver which uses the > > API, it's possible that there was some error in updating that driver to > > the new interface which is causing the issue. > Actually the original commit not only change that callback 'set_cs_timing' but it also > calls 'mtk_spi_set_hw_cs_timing' directly from the function "mtk_spi_prepare_message". > So this actually influences all devices bound to this driver (in upstream) > I did some printing and it does change values that are written to registers. OK, so that's something that should have been in the commit log, preferrably in a more detailed form that identifies what the change is. However changing the values written out is clearly not the intent of the patch and it is a substantially better API so can we not just fix things so that the old values are written out? Why are we jumping straight to a revert here?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
