[CCing the regression list, as it should be in the loop for regressions: https://docs.kernel.org/admin-guide/reporting-regressions.html] [TLDR: I'm adding this report to the list of tracked Linux kernel regressions; the text you find below is based on a few templates paragraphs you might have encountered already in similar form. See link in footer if these mails annoy you.] On 07.03.23 14:21, Brian Morrison wrote: > Hello Mathias (sorry you're getting this twice). > > Re-send after linux-usb list rejection (too big). > > Hans de Goede replied to my Fedora kernel bug here: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2175534 > > suggesting that I contact you about it and Cc: the linux-usb list. > > Starting with kernel-6.2.2-300 on Fedora x86_64 (the first 6.2 kernel on > Fedora 37) I am seeing problems with USB devices on a Renesas > ROM-based USB PCI card which works normally with kernel-6.1.15-200 and > earlier 6.x kernels, essentially the USB 2.0 device tree on this card's > bus is not being enumerated with the result that my /dev/ttyUSB* > devices are no longer present (these are Silicon Labs CP210x UARTS with > TI PCM290x devices behind them). > > I have attached the lsusb -t output for the working and broken cases, I > don't know where the problem lies but I suspect it's not udev because > the configuration is unchanged, it seems to be in the kernel usb code. > > There are further attachments in the bug referred to above, I don't > know if they help but you can look there if the lsusb output is > insufficient, I can point out that lsmod does show the cp210x module is > loaded which may provide a clue about where things are failing. > > Thanks for reading this, I look forward to hearing your suggestions. Thanks for the report. To be sure the issue doesn't fall through the cracks unnoticed, I'm adding it to regzbot, the Linux kernel regression tracking bot: #regzbot ^introduced v6.1..v6.2 #regzbot title usb: USB 2.0 device tree not enumerated on Renesas ROM-based USB PCI card #regzbot ignore-activity This isn't a regression? This issue or a fix for it are already discussed somewhere else? It was fixed already? You want to clarify when the regression started to happen? Or point out I got the title or something else totally wrong? Then just reply and tell me -- ideally while also telling regzbot about it, as explained by the page listed in the footer of this mail. Developers: When fixing the issue, remember to add 'Link:' tags pointing to the report (the parent of this mail). See page linked in footer for details. Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat) -- Everything you wanna know about Linux kernel regression tracking: https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/about/#tldr That page also explains what to do if mails like this annoy you.
