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 33F35C433EF for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 02:52:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235577AbiCVCxc (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Mar 2022 22:53:32 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:46644 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S235473AbiCVCxb (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Mar 2022 22:53:31 -0400 Received: from mail-pj1-x102b.google.com (mail-pj1-x102b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102b]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B82AC52B04 for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2022 19:52:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x102b.google.com with SMTP id o3-20020a17090a3d4300b001c6bc749227so968394pjf.1 for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2022 19:52:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject:content-language:to :cc:references:from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=O/lcliIRAqwQlRYKUGRfUd2XRkTPCUiR7gECDUV4FEY=; b=YU6zU9YL37l1mwH4e94vDklKtGIzfYQj1Qyd7OcP8FDDEfeK1UlFvhnpzzWr2bMN0V aMHGonYaQ0WSXqrf8zQmYKUmWvujaIV7bDjAAUJeZsnCv3LEbsXLwklhnB/7oiDNROsp rlmN4dgSzCOA/wOK9D8+UfCF4rehc0LV+U2mFIRAAtdiV3seGQFDmEaEKdxpjYgMq1vg VL1k7xtndU0g7Zeod/xuavXy5KimAnkk2Bk6MCc8y/W2sh5hsK1hHxpyk6sUwN1hTuSa 6AAOGxyKSDzqWx5tQkxYHnrEUQ3If5oq2yqCy1T7x+G8RmOaIyJm1kz+sTlHSuShRbDo NUdg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:cc:references:from:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=O/lcliIRAqwQlRYKUGRfUd2XRkTPCUiR7gECDUV4FEY=; b=rBaKb166uHcTiWoCV5mZR1/DOQ+v369NhXAV56qCDIJ8WcuahO738T6RTHVi2clEu9 1xHaAf6ZVie4N5U3hyRgplHWWUvqctRXyN/bnKFHIaYC5WafowVNCMNedGSD8UChfDRX YuVe2ugjKIbQ4lDXZi3+uSqHZAD1Mgb7mVGO743QsqLTJIRsiyeEEnCC9R6LyoHkMe7w PsMjHKmJTYOt4XhTBZUBIHzg2rpU5zuSN/0VA0tHPFZqmEV4kYT2BywY/t5+3xpSHpD2 EJl7qn6NxnjTmBvqLbEvv5FCorfXVt7ccM7SwCL7S8smO/ZV6RoPVI3fkj9vg7y+ApdW M9lw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531ieaLVJdkkI6IgdGaspoR81P8/4cfzvTJkd0cH6uK+bCNgiWYq eyhMsKrkPHqRLM/1OgZr2VbdBsaJPus= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx3wOJp9DkyyA89b1K7+IrRu4MUUX81x9Ii3WbvZ7L3hCGwXNb6YssjWsdgytfK94v/6kw7zg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:c286:b0:154:25ae:d6c7 with SMTP id i6-20020a170902c28600b0015425aed6c7mr15887226pld.44.1647917524059; Mon, 21 Mar 2022 19:52:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.122.100] (133-175-21-116.tokyo.ap.gmo-isp.jp. [133.175.21.116]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f14-20020a056a0022ce00b004fabe9fac23sm2191pfj.151.2022.03.21.19.52.01 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 21 Mar 2022 19:52:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 11:51:59 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.7.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] mtd: cfi_cmdset_0002: Use chip_ready() for write on S29GL064N Content-Language: en-US To: Thorsten Leemhuis , Miquel Raynal Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Ahmad Fatoum , stable@vger.kernel.org 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> <20220321155618.7bfa214e@xps13> <09be42ec-9eee-8237-83e9-054956381aab@leemhuis.info> From: Tokunori Ikegami In-Reply-To: <09be42ec-9eee-8237-83e9-054956381aab@leemhuis.info> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org Hi, On 2022/03/22 0:16, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > On 21.03.22 15:56, Miquel Raynal wrote: >> 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: >>>>> On 21.03.22 13:35, Miquel Raynal wrote: >>>>>> regressions@leemhuis.info wrote on Mon, 21 Mar 2022 12:48:11 +0100: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 16.03.22 16:54, Tokunori Ikegami wrote: >>>>>>>> As pointed out by this bug report [1], buffered writes are now broken 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 the change >>>>>>>> partially to use chip_ready for S29GL064N. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/b687c259-6413-26c9-d4c9-b3afa69ea124@pengutronix.de/ >>>>>>> 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 peoples >>>>>>> life unnecessary hard. :-(( >>>>>>> >>>>>>> FWIW, the proper style should support footnote style like this: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Link: >>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/b687c259-6413-26c9-d4c9-b3afa69ea124@pengutronix.de/ >>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ciao, Thorsten >>>>>>> >>>>>>> #regzbot ^backmonitor: >>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/b687c259-6413-26c9-d4c9-b3afa69ea124@pengutronix.de/ >>>>>>> >>>>>> Because today's requirement from maintainers is to provide a Link >>>>>> tag that points to the mail discussion of the patch being applied. >>>>> That can be an additional Link tag, that is done all the time. >>>>> >>>>>> 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? >>>> Perhaps I should emphasize that I don't remember your initial request >>>> regarding the use of a Link tag >>> Happen, no worries. >>> >>>> and my original idea was to help this >>>> contributor, not kill your tools which I actually know very little >>>> about. >>>>>> But it's not your own project, we are all working with thousands of >>>>> 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. >>>> Let's be honest, you are referring to a Documentation patch that *you* >>>> wrote >>> 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... >>> >>>> and was merged into Linus' tree mid January. How often do you >>>> think people used to the contribution workflow monitor these files? >>> 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]" > Maybe. But I think the better approach would be: introduce more specify > tags like "Reported:" (and maybe drop "Reported-by" at the same time?) > or "BugLink" (some people use that already!) would be better -- and then > maybe "Posted:", "Reviewposting", or something like that for the link to > the patch that is being applied; and leave "Link" for the rest. I > proposed that a while ago, but that didn't get any traction. Fixed to use Link tag as before by the version 5 patches instead of [1]. Regards, Ikegami > >> 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. > Maybe, but OTOH that link is normally at the end, which kinda makes it > obvious. > >> [...] > Ciao, Thorsten