Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: mt7622: fix switch probe on bananapi-r64

["Arınç ÜNAL" <arinc.unal@arinc9.com>]

On 01/07/2024 09:16, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:
> [CCing the other net maintainers]
> 
> On 25.06.24 10:51, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
>> Il 25/06/24 07:56, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) ha
>> scritto:
>>> On 17.06.24 13:08, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:
>>>> On 17/06/2024 11:33, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)
>>>> wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>> It looks more and more like we are stuck here (or was there progress and
>>> I just missed it?) while the 6.10 final is slowly getting closer. Hence:
>>>
>>> AngeloGioacchino, should we ask the net maintainers to revert
>>> 868ff5f4944aa9 ("net: dsa: mt7530-mdio: read PHY address of switch from
>>> device tree") for now to resolve this regression? Reminder, there is
>>> nothing wrong with that commit per se afaik, it just exposes a problem
>>> that needs to be fixed first before it can be reapplied.
>>
>> To be clear on this: I asked for the commit to be fixed such that it
>> guarantees
>> backwards compatibility with older device trees.
>>
>> If no fix comes,
> 
> I haven't see any since that mail, did you? If not, I think...
> 
>> then I guess that we should ask them to revert this commit
>> until a fix is available.
> 
> ...it's time to ask them for the revert to resolve this for -rc7 (and
> avoid a last minute revert), or what do you think?

This is quite frustrating. I absolutely won't consent to a revert. I've
spent a great amount of time and effort explaining why this is neither
necessary nor a good approach in this email thread. I'm not going to accept
a revert due to the other side's failure to communicate, which will create
unnecessary work for me to do. It is ridiculous to demand a change in a
Linux driver before accepting a device tree patch.

Arınç