Re: Bug 215726 - si2157.c: mention name of the missing firmware file

[Piotr Chmura <chmooreck@gmail.com>]

W dniu 30.03.2022 o 12:44, Thorsten Leemhuis pisze:
> On 30.03.22 12:35, Piotr Chmura wrote:
>> W dniu 30.03.2022 o 11:55, Thorsten Leemhuis pisze:
>>> On 29.03.22 21:21, Robert Schlabbach wrote:
>>>> the patch linked in the bugzilla ticket:
>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-media/6f84b7f4-3ede-ae55-e99b-a9d4108c80e2@gmail.com/
>>>>
>>>> should indeed fix the issue.
>>> Ahh, the comment mentioning it was added shortly after I sent my mail.
>>> #regzbot monitor:
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-media/6f84b7f4-3ede-ae55-e99b-a9d4108c80e2@gmail.com/
>>>
>>>
>>> Adding Piotr, the patches' author to the CC, who also replied.
>>>
>>> BTW: that patch is afaics missing a Fixes tag specifying the culprit and
>>> a `Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 5.17.x` tag to make sure it's quickly
>>> backported to the stable tree, as among others explained here:
>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/handling-regressions.rst
>>>
>> Sorry for my inconvenience.
> Don't worry, everything fine. In a case like...
>
>> I just fixed my device and wanted to share
>> solution with the "world". I'm not familiar with all kernel development
>> convention (yet).
> ...this someone else should point such details out to the submitter
> and/or add these tags when applying the patch.
>
> @Robert: Do you know which commit causes this regression and could tell
> us for a proper Fixes: tag?
Fixes: 1c35ba3bf97213538b82067acc0f23f18e652226

Cheers,
Piotr Chmura
> Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)
>
> P.S.: As the Linux kernel's regression tracker I'm getting a lot of
> reports on my table. I can only look briefly into most of them and lack
> knowledge about most of the areas they concern. I thus unfortunately
> will sometimes get things wrong or miss something important. I hope
> that's not the case here; if you think it is, don't hesitate to tell me
> in a public reply, it's in everyone's interest to set the public record
> straight.
>
>
>>>> The error was that the rom_id and required
>>>> fields were swapped in the table, so the non-zero rom_id was taken as a
>>>> "true" required boolean value, thus incorrectly evaluating that the
>>>> chip requires a firmware file to operate when in fact it does not.
>>>> I have tested the patch and found it worked for me. But I do not know
>>>> how to push this further along:
>>>> https://patchwork.linuxtv.org/project/linux-media/patch/6f84b7f4-3ede-ae55-e99b-a9d4108c80e2@gmail.com/
>>>>
>>> Mauro, what's up here? The patch fixes a regression and thus afaics
>>> should quickly find its way towards mainline to get it into the stable
>>> tree, as explained in the (bran new) document linked above.
>>>
>>> Ciao, Thorsten
>>>
>>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 29. März 2022 um 10:33 Uhr
>>>> Von: "Thorsten Leemhuis" <regressions@leemhuis.info>
>>>> An: "Antti Palosaari" <crope@iki.fi>, "Mauro Carvalho Chehab"
>>>> <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>, "Robert Schlabbach" <robert_s@gmx.net>
>>>> Cc: "regressions@lists.linux.dev" <regressions@lists.linux.dev>,
>>>> az0123456@gmx.de, "Linux Media Mailing List"
>>>> <linux-media@vger.kernel.org>, "Linux Kernel Mailing List"
>>>> <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
>>>> Betreff: Bug 215726 - si2157.c: mention name of the missing firmware
>>>> file
>>>> Hi, this is your Linux kernel regression tracker.
>>>>
>>>> I noticed a regression report in bugzilla.kernel.org that afaics nobody
>>>> acted upon since it was reported about a week ago, that's why I decided
>>>> to forward it to the lists and all people that seemed to be relevant
>>>> here. To quote from https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215726 :
>>>>
>>>>> I get the following error messages when trying to use si2157.ko in
>>>>> linux 5.17:
>>>>> si2157 13-0060: found a 'Silicon Labs Si2157-A30 ROM 0x50'
>>>>> si2157 13-0060: Can't continue without a firmware
>>>>> I did work in linux 5.16.16 without a firmware file. Unfortunately
>>>>> the driver does not tell me the name of the missing firmware file.
>>>> Could somebody take a look into this? Or was this discussed somewhere
>>>> else already? Or even fixed?
>>>>
>>>>
>>