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 5EDBEC433F5 for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2022 14:56:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1349766AbiCUO6A (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Mar 2022 10:58:00 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:48050 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1349686AbiCUO5x (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Mar 2022 10:57:53 -0400 Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (relay3-d.mail.gandi.net [IPv6:2001:4b98:dc4:8::223]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC6E7340EA for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2022 07:56:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: (Authenticated sender: miquel.raynal@bootlin.com) by mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2473560003; Mon, 21 Mar 2022 14:56:19 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bootlin.com; s=gm1; t=1647874581; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=JAo/x8R7rAbW3xDbvvHX3hFb31xZ9EbfQa3/rwY/KzY=; b=jj45yubSTsmuEFkrh/iP5XbVEA2Mew4nLlY7ITc4EtuLPueXWnPfsxWdRc9kOlUxTMGwZP EVusUHou97LymkpOCPmm3U3TpkETAlUJlbJ8RmzaQv4UeeaS8ooVvsN828zW0eKrUywWH/ K09lVSgwAwibsxETjOWAKoCrt4TCdUXJUKq5dUszlvgu9eu2jLANgfIsA4sfdvwceuT99X 1KIUyezsRPRdbBIAlqMfH1hWVnmDIjLkZaD3gYEIFoLRpuUh459gDs1/fzqbua52wFBt55 la/bejwmebBdYa+KReyCtrpacPRxMVtCqjNtwU2MlLtFopemRxaAOAudq1b0YA== Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2022 15:56:18 +0100 From: Miquel Raynal To: Thorsten Leemhuis Cc: Tokunori Ikegami , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Ahmad Fatoum , stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] mtd: cfi_cmdset_0002: Use chip_ready() for write on S29GL064N Message-ID: <20220321155618.7bfa214e@xps13> In-Reply-To: <3ed10e7e-1c73-6464-b1df-6c6e086fa162@leemhuis.info> References: <20220316155455.162362-1-ikegami.t@gmail.com> <20220316155455.162362-3-ikegami.t@gmail.com> <20220321133529.2d3addaf@xps13> <20220321144134.3076a2ba@xps13> <3ed10e7e-1c73-6464-b1df-6c6e086fa162@leemhuis.info> Organization: Bootlin X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.7 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org Hi Thorsten, regressions@leemhuis.info wrote on Mon, 21 Mar 2022 15:17:50 +0100: > On 21.03.22 14:41, Miquel Raynal wrote: > > regressions@leemhuis.info wrote on Mon, 21 Mar 2022 13:51:10 +0100: =20 > >> On 21.03.22 13:35, Miquel Raynal wrote: =20 > >>> regressions@leemhuis.info wrote on Mon, 21 Mar 2022 12:48:11 +0100: > >>> =20 > >>>> On 16.03.22 16:54, Tokunori Ikegami wrote: =20 > >>>>> As pointed out by this bug report [1], buffered writes are now brok= en on > >>>>> S29GL064N. This issue comes from a rework which switched from using= chip_good() > >>>>> to chip_ready(), because DQ true data 0xFF is read on S29GL064N and= an error > >>>>> returned by chip_good(). One way to solve the issue is to revert th= e change > >>>>> partially to use chip_ready for S29GL064N. > >>>>> > >>>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/b687c259-6413-26c9-d4c9-b3afa69ea124@= pengutronix.de/ =20 > >>>> > >>>> Why did you switch from the documented format for links you added on= my > >>>> request (see > >>>> https://lore.kernel.org/stable/f1b44e87-e457-7783-d46e-0d577cea3b72@= leemhuis.info/ > >>>> > >>>> ) to v2 to something else that is not recognized by tools and scripts > >>>> that rely on proper link tags? You are making my and maybe other peo= ples > >>>> life unnecessary hard. :-(( > >>>> > >>>> FWIW, the proper style should support footnote style like this: > >>>> > >>>> Link: > >>>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/b687c259-6413-26c9-d4c9-b3afa69ea124@pengu= tronix.de/ > >>>> [1] > >>>> > >>>> Ciao, Thorsten > >>>> > >>>> #regzbot ^backmonitor: > >>>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/b687c259-6413-26c9-d4c9-b3afa69ea124@pengu= tronix.de/ > >>>> =20 > >>> > >>> Because today's requirement from maintainers is to provide a Link > >>> tag that points to the mail discussion of the patch being applied. =20 > >> > >> That can be an additional Link tag, that is done all the time. > >> =20 > >>> I > >>> then asked to use the above form instead to point to the bug report > >>> because I don't see the point of having a "Link" tag for it? =20 > >=20 > > Perhaps I should emphasize that I don't remember your initial request > > regarding the use of a Link tag =20 >=20 > Happen, no worries. >=20 > > and my original idea was to help this > > contributor, not kill your tools which I actually know very little > > about. =20 > >>> But it's not your own project, we are all working with thousands of = =20 > >> people together on this project on various different fronts. That needs > >> coordination, as some things otherwise become hard or impossible. That= 's > >> why we have documentation that explains how to do some things. Not > >> following it just because you don't like it is not helpful and in this > >> case makes my life as a volunteer a lot harder. =20 > >=20 > > Let's be honest, you are referring to a Documentation patch that *you* > > wrote =20 >=20 > Correct, but in case of submitting-patches it was just a clarification > how to place links; why the whole aspect was missing in the other is > kinda odd and likely lost in history... >=20 > > and was merged into Linus' tree mid January. How often do you > > think people used to the contribution workflow monitor these files? =20 >=20 > Not often, that's why I have no problem pointing it out, even if that's > slightly annoying. But you can imagine that it felt kinda odd on my side > when asking someone to set the links (with references to the docs > explaining how to set them) and seeing them added then in v2, just so > see they vanished again in v3 of the same patch. :-/ I fully understand. I actually learned that these tags had to be used for this purpose, so I will actually enforce their use in my next reviews. Just a side question, should the Documentation also mention how to refer to links for people not used to it? Something like [5.Posting.rst]: "Link: [1] Link: [2]" My original point was that maintainers would almost always add a Link tag at the end, containing the mailing-list thread about the patch being applied. Just saying in the commit log "see the link below" then becomes misleading. > > I am totally fine enforcing the use of Link: tags if this is what has > > been decided, just don't expect everybody to switch to a style rather > > than another over a night. =20 >=20 > I don't. >=20 > >> If you don't like the approach explained by the documentation, submit a > >> patch adjusting the documentation and then we can talk about this. But > >> until that is applied please stick to the format explained by the > >> documentation. =20 > > This is uselessly condescending. =20 >=20 > I apologize, it wasn't meant that way. No worries, thanks :-) > I had to many discussions already > where people were not setting any links and it seems the topic is slowly > hitting a nerve here. Sorry. I also feel like I am repeating myself sometimes. And then I remember Rob and the ton of e-mails where he has to repeat himself hundreds of times a day and I feel slightly better :-p Cheers, Miqu=C3=A8l