From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F6F6C43334 for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2022 00:01:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231401AbiFNAA7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Jun 2022 20:00:59 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:54974 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231284AbiFNAA6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Jun 2022 20:00:58 -0400 Received: from ams.source.kernel.org (ams.source.kernel.org [IPv6:2604:1380:4601:e00::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0679D30F5B for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 17:00:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ams.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6FB2B8168D for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2022 00:00:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1A640C34114; Tue, 14 Jun 2022 00:00:53 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1655164854; bh=0PrpgM1A+kQ6oQViCMgUSKoyB+V0WvCh8ECHe+2ip3I=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:From; b=RwWWX7lqAhOe810J5slooRKhfJiL/fkm9XDi0w/PZ5aFVjvcltpCMS8xXue4EOTcS EmewtnkQrZwLe220gUQqInU1InKXodCd5nLWroYx1UJVZRLM1qOgkS1KgI6+GPaO6h jRB9pUKTDmDqtLZangBAMicOAmydVWh+iWuqNbcw+3nXMLPBE4SDsODRE85Mt8rdCV E4IbdF9FpxPBn8GGAjxQJl+QnXs8VrZSiWbywGgdWw3624RSxjIL15SPSiQF13CInn 3tCzgKJQRX1RARdpvgltcYIHhJlbe350ePK/+xlUOS8yywNhXw8dPEYfb0tZE2MLtm JWz0u895HpHHw== Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2022 19:00:52 -0500 From: Bjorn Helgaas To: Florian Fainelli Cc: Jim Quinlan , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Cyril Brulebois , Nicolas Saenz Julienne , bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, regressions@lists.linux.dev, Bjorn Helgaas Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] PCI: brcmstb: Revert subdevice regulator stuff Message-ID: <20220614000052.GA727153@bhelgaas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 10:06:12AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: > On 5/11/22 13:39, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 01:24:55PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: > > > On 5/11/22 13:18, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > > From: Bjorn Helgaas > > > > > > > > Cyril reported that 830aa6f29f07 ("PCI: brcmstb: Split brcm_pcie_setup() > > > > into two funcs"), which appeared in v5.17-rc1, broke booting on the > > > > Raspberry Pi Compute Module 4. Revert 830aa6f29f07 and subsequent patches > > > > for now. > > > > > > How about we get a chance to fix this? Where, when and how was this even > > > reported? > > > > Sorry, I forgot to cc you, that's my fault: > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/CABhMZUWjZCwK1_qT2ghTSu2dguJBzBTpiTqKohyA72OSGMsaeg@mail.gmail.com > > > > If you come up with a fix, I'll drop the reverts, of course. > What is even better is that meanwhile there was already a candidate fix > proposed on May 18th, and a v2 on May 28th, so still an alternative to the > reverts making it to Linus' tree, or so I thought. I hoped for a fix, but neither of those seemed to be clearly better. > - the history for pcie-brcmstb.c is now looking super ugly because we have 4 > commits getting reverted and if we were to add back the original feature > being added now what? Do we come up with reverts of reverts, or the modified > (with the fix) original commits applied on top, are not we going to sign > ourselves for another 13 or so round of patches before we all agree on the > solution? I agree on the ugliness and I try hard to avoid that. In this case I waited too long after the regression was discovered, hoping for a fix that was better than the revert. And I should have asked for trade-offs between the revert and the the CM4 regression. > - we could have just fixed this with proper communication from the get go > about the regression in the first place, which remains the failure in > communicating appropriately with driver authors/maintainers I apologized earlier for omitting you when the regression was discovered, and I'm still sorry. > I appreciate that as a maintainer you are very sensitive to regressions and > want to be responsive and responsible but this is not leaving just a > slightest chance to right a wrong. Can we not do that again please? Cyril opened the bugzilla April 30 and I forwarded it to linux-pci and to Jim (but not you; again, I'm sorry for that omission) on May 2. >From my perspective we had almost a month to push this forward, but we didn't quite make it. I posted the reverts May 11, but I did not realize the regression to you and other users they would cause. I apologize for that. Bjorn