From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.8]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D153F3C0B for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2024 06:58:36 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="W6yM9KO9" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1705301917; x=1736837917; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:references:from: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=GthENmDP5Xl6UBnbPyVkMGnv3vbBOBTnop7jZJN7k4U=; b=W6yM9KO9YbuQuRK0lN8z44Oc+vtqgT0iLZ8ilfA1ialAmUn8ZQB5lJ5I 3ryi8pDW6XUvVZRn2QemT88vQAnqbIHcaCvNEqW+4vC0qtdbChANT66rv L2BREHPNP6vRPue4fVPR4cok6Da3H6E1Gl4059w4M4rfGepJBn41OKcmz fRzcyLEKk+uo2W7ZNU4xC9vFHQ95anPXujhsVyU3z2mzfGSeZvD4MbQl/ UzC9Ud0rvCMSTQrYtiYGy5pKGdPLefoW2V+Ba3ETGI2eG0N2dMY1f1iHT fqkclxHolEqPoS7TfZVPehXOTSOAYbGVv7ZQ2EL9Lu1GfE/5VxVDqUf6N g==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10953"; a="13027020" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.04,196,1695711600"; d="scan'208";a="13027020" Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by fmvoesa102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Jan 2024 22:58:36 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10953"; a="906973695" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.04,196,1695711600"; d="scan'208";a="906973695" Received: from marquiz-s-2.fi.intel.com (HELO [10.237.72.58]) ([10.237.72.58]) by orsmga004.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 14 Jan 2024 22:58:33 -0800 Message-ID: <5c47fe25-082d-485a-b840-abe6b17834b6@linux.intel.com> Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2024 08:58:32 +0200 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: designware: Revert recent changes to i2c_dw_probe_lock_support() Content-Language: en-US To: Andy Shevchenko , Wolfram Sang , Kim Phillips , linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, Mika Westerberg , Jan Dabros , Andi Shyti , Borislav Petkov , V Narasimhan References: <20240111125658.921083-1-jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com> <9bb96130-d662-4904-9e4b-6a823b51a990@linux.intel.com> From: Jarkko Nikula In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 1/14/24 19:06, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Sat, Jan 13, 2024 at 08:26:28PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: >>>> Hold on, I'm testing this on top of next-20240111 and still seeing the >>>> splat... >>>> >>> Btw, does this reproduce always? Can we be mislead if it happens somewhat >>> randomly? Happens to boot once we revert some commits and then at another >>> Andy's nearby commit does not and we make the wrong conclusion? >> >> Thanks for all the work trying to find the regression so far. As I want >> to send out my pull request soon, I think it is safest if I revert the >> whole series and we start with a clean new version. > > Oh, but true. Let's start over later on. I will rearrange patches and Cc to AMD > in the next version, so we will have unquestionable ones first. > I think everybody also likes sentence below from Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst: "If you cannot condense your patch set into a smaller set of patches, then only post say 15 or so at a time and wait for review and integration."