2013-03-04 07:40:40

by Christian Gmeiner

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] leds-ot200: Fix misbehavior caused by wrong bit masks

ping
--
Christian Gmeiner, MSc


2013/2/23 Christian Gmeiner <[email protected]>:
> 2013/2/15 Bryan Wu <[email protected]>:
>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Christian Gmeiner
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> During the development of this driver an in-house register
>>> documentation was used. The last weeks some integration tests
>>> were done and this problem was found. It turned out that
>>> the released register documentation is wrong.
>>>
>>> The fix is very simple: shift all masks by one.
>>>
>>> Our customers can control LEDs from userspace via Java,
>>> C++ or what every. They have running/working applications where
>>> they want to control led_3 but led_2 get's used.
>>> I got a bug report in our in-house bug tracker so it would be
>>> great to fix this upstream.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Christian Gmeiner <[email protected]>
>>
>> Thanks, Christian.
>>
>> And Andrew, are you going to take care of this patch? Or I will merge this.
>>
>
> Whats the current state of the patch? Hope we can get it into 3.9 :)
>
> --
> Christian Gmeiner, MSc


2013-03-05 18:47:16

by Bryan Wu

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] leds-ot200: Fix misbehavior caused by wrong bit masks

On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 11:40 PM, Christian Gmeiner
<[email protected]> wrote:
> ping
> --
> Christian Gmeiner, MSc
>
>
> 2013/2/23 Christian Gmeiner <[email protected]>:
>> 2013/2/15 Bryan Wu <[email protected]>:
>>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Christian Gmeiner
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> During the development of this driver an in-house register
>>>> documentation was used. The last weeks some integration tests
>>>> were done and this problem was found. It turned out that
>>>> the released register documentation is wrong.
>>>>
>>>> The fix is very simple: shift all masks by one.
>>>>
>>>> Our customers can control LEDs from userspace via Java,
>>>> C++ or what every. They have running/working applications where
>>>> they want to control led_3 but led_2 get's used.
>>>> I got a bug report in our in-house bug tracker so it would be
>>>> great to fix this upstream.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Christian Gmeiner <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> Thanks, Christian.
>>>
>>> And Andrew, are you going to take care of this patch? Or I will merge this.
>>>
>>
>> Whats the current state of the patch? Hope we can get it into 3.9 :)
>>

I think this patch is already in linux-next via Andrew's tree (commit
023206171f235f93f26c314f76f5405a3077aaba). So it will be merged into
3.10 I guess, but not 3.9.

Or I can send out this patch to Linus as a fix and ask Andrew to drop
this from his tree.

Thanks,
-Bryan

2013-03-08 07:27:21

by Christian Gmeiner

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] leds-ot200: Fix misbehavior caused by wrong bit masks

2013/3/5 Bryan Wu <[email protected]>:
> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 11:40 PM, Christian Gmeiner
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> ping
>> --
>> Christian Gmeiner, MSc
>>
>>
>> 2013/2/23 Christian Gmeiner <[email protected]>:
>>> 2013/2/15 Bryan Wu <[email protected]>:
>>>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Christian Gmeiner
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> During the development of this driver an in-house register
>>>>> documentation was used. The last weeks some integration tests
>>>>> were done and this problem was found. It turned out that
>>>>> the released register documentation is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fix is very simple: shift all masks by one.
>>>>>
>>>>> Our customers can control LEDs from userspace via Java,
>>>>> C++ or what every. They have running/working applications where
>>>>> they want to control led_3 but led_2 get's used.
>>>>> I got a bug report in our in-house bug tracker so it would be
>>>>> great to fix this upstream.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Christian Gmeiner <[email protected]>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Christian.
>>>>
>>>> And Andrew, are you going to take care of this patch? Or I will merge this.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Whats the current state of the patch? Hope we can get it into 3.9 :)
>>>
>
> I think this patch is already in linux-next via Andrew's tree (commit
> 023206171f235f93f26c314f76f5405a3077aaba). So it will be merged into
> 3.10 I guess, but not 3.9.
>
> Or I can send out this patch to Linus as a fix and ask Andrew to drop
> this from his tree.
>

I am fine with the current situation and 3.10 is fine too.

thanks
--
Christian Gmeiner, MSc

2013-05-12 10:12:18

by Christian Gmeiner

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] leds-ot200: Fix misbehavior caused by wrong bit masks

2013/3/8 Christian Gmeiner <[email protected]>:
> 2013/3/5 Bryan Wu <[email protected]>:
>> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 11:40 PM, Christian Gmeiner
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> ping
>>> --
>>> Christian Gmeiner, MSc
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/2/23 Christian Gmeiner <[email protected]>:
>>>> 2013/2/15 Bryan Wu <[email protected]>:
>>>>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Christian Gmeiner
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> During the development of this driver an in-house register
>>>>>> documentation was used. The last weeks some integration tests
>>>>>> were done and this problem was found. It turned out that
>>>>>> the released register documentation is wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fix is very simple: shift all masks by one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Our customers can control LEDs from userspace via Java,
>>>>>> C++ or what every. They have running/working applications where
>>>>>> they want to control led_3 but led_2 get's used.
>>>>>> I got a bug report in our in-house bug tracker so it would be
>>>>>> great to fix this upstream.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Christian Gmeiner <[email protected]>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, Christian.
>>>>>
>>>>> And Andrew, are you going to take care of this patch? Or I will merge this.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Whats the current state of the patch? Hope we can get it into 3.9 :)
>>>>
>>
>> I think this patch is already in linux-next via Andrew's tree (commit
>> 023206171f235f93f26c314f76f5405a3077aaba). So it will be merged into
>> 3.10 I guess, but not 3.9.
>>
>> Or I can send out this patch to Linus as a fix and ask Andrew to drop
>> this from his tree.
>>
>
> I am fine with the current situation and 3.10 is fine too.
>

3.10-rc1 is out but my patch is missing. What happened?

https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/log/?id=refs%2Ftags%2Fv3.10-rc1&qt=author&q=gmeiner

--
Christian Gmeiner, MSc

2013-05-14 07:07:16

by Christian Gmeiner

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] leds-ot200: Fix misbehavior caused by wrong bit masks

2013/5/12 Christian Gmeiner <[email protected]>:
> 2013/3/8 Christian Gmeiner <[email protected]>:
>> 2013/3/5 Bryan Wu <[email protected]>:
>>> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 11:40 PM, Christian Gmeiner
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> ping
>>>> --
>>>> Christian Gmeiner, MSc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2013/2/23 Christian Gmeiner <[email protected]>:
>>>>> 2013/2/15 Bryan Wu <[email protected]>:
>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Christian Gmeiner
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> During the development of this driver an in-house register
>>>>>>> documentation was used. The last weeks some integration tests
>>>>>>> were done and this problem was found. It turned out that
>>>>>>> the released register documentation is wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fix is very simple: shift all masks by one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Our customers can control LEDs from userspace via Java,
>>>>>>> C++ or what every. They have running/working applications where
>>>>>>> they want to control led_3 but led_2 get's used.
>>>>>>> I got a bug report in our in-house bug tracker so it would be
>>>>>>> great to fix this upstream.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Christian Gmeiner <[email protected]>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks, Christian.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And Andrew, are you going to take care of this patch? Or I will merge this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Whats the current state of the patch? Hope we can get it into 3.9 :)
>>>>>
>>>
>>> I think this patch is already in linux-next via Andrew's tree (commit
>>> 023206171f235f93f26c314f76f5405a3077aaba). So it will be merged into
>>> 3.10 I guess, but not 3.9.
>>>
>>> Or I can send out this patch to Linus as a fix and ask Andrew to drop
>>> this from his tree.
>>>
>>
>> I am fine with the current situation and 3.10 is fine too.
>>
>
> 3.10-rc1 is out but my patch is missing. What happened?
>
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/log/?id=refs%2Ftags%2Fv3.10-rc1&qt=author&q=gmeiner
>

ping
--
Christian Gmeiner, MSc

2013-05-14 17:12:29

by Bryan Wu

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] leds-ot200: Fix misbehavior caused by wrong bit masks

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:06 AM, Christian Gmeiner
<[email protected]> wrote:
> 2013/5/12 Christian Gmeiner <[email protected]>:
>> 2013/3/8 Christian Gmeiner <[email protected]>:
>>> 2013/3/5 Bryan Wu <[email protected]>:
>>>> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 11:40 PM, Christian Gmeiner
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> ping
>>>>> --

I found this patch is still in linux-next, I'm not sure whether it
will be merged into 3.10 like a bug fixing. We need to wait Andrew's
reply. I'm OK to pick up and send out to Linus as a bug fixing.

Thanks,
-Bryan

>>>>> Christian Gmeiner, MSc
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2013/2/23 Christian Gmeiner <[email protected]>:
>>>>>> 2013/2/15 Bryan Wu <[email protected]>:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Christian Gmeiner
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> During the development of this driver an in-house register
>>>>>>>> documentation was used. The last weeks some integration tests
>>>>>>>> were done and this problem was found. It turned out that
>>>>>>>> the released register documentation is wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fix is very simple: shift all masks by one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Our customers can control LEDs from userspace via Java,
>>>>>>>> C++ or what every. They have running/working applications where
>>>>>>>> they want to control led_3 but led_2 get's used.
>>>>>>>> I got a bug report in our in-house bug tracker so it would be
>>>>>>>> great to fix this upstream.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Christian Gmeiner <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks, Christian.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And Andrew, are you going to take care of this patch? Or I will merge this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whats the current state of the patch? Hope we can get it into 3.9 :)
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think this patch is already in linux-next via Andrew's tree (commit
>>>> 023206171f235f93f26c314f76f5405a3077aaba). So it will be merged into
>>>> 3.10 I guess, but not 3.9.
>>>>
>>>> Or I can send out this patch to Linus as a fix and ask Andrew to drop
>>>> this from his tree.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am fine with the current situation and 3.10 is fine too.
>>>
>>
>> 3.10-rc1 is out but my patch is missing. What happened?
>>
>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/log/?id=refs%2Ftags%2Fv3.10-rc1&qt=author&q=gmeiner
>>
>
> ping
> --
> Christian Gmeiner, MSc

2013-05-14 17:16:11

by Andrew Morton

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] leds-ot200: Fix misbehavior caused by wrong bit masks

On Tue, 14 May 2013 10:12:04 -0700 Bryan Wu <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:06 AM, Christian Gmeiner
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 2013/5/12 Christian Gmeiner <[email protected]>:
> >> 2013/3/8 Christian Gmeiner <[email protected]>:
> >>> 2013/3/5 Bryan Wu <[email protected]>:
> >>>> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 11:40 PM, Christian Gmeiner
> >>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>> ping
> >>>>> --
>
> I found this patch is still in linux-next, I'm not sure whether it
> will be merged into 3.10 like a bug fixing. We need to wait Andrew's
> reply. I'm OK to pick up and send out to Linus as a bug fixing.

whome, I'd forgotten I had this. I stuck a cc:stable on the end and
shall send it in to Linus in the next 3.10 batch, OK?

2013-05-14 17:36:43

by Bryan Wu

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] leds-ot200: Fix misbehavior caused by wrong bit masks

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Andrew Morton
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 10:12:04 -0700 Bryan Wu <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:06 AM, Christian Gmeiner
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > 2013/5/12 Christian Gmeiner <[email protected]>:
>> >> 2013/3/8 Christian Gmeiner <[email protected]>:
>> >>> 2013/3/5 Bryan Wu <[email protected]>:
>> >>>> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 11:40 PM, Christian Gmeiner
>> >>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>>>> ping
>> >>>>> --
>>
>> I found this patch is still in linux-next, I'm not sure whether it
>> will be merged into 3.10 like a bug fixing. We need to wait Andrew's
>> reply. I'm OK to pick up and send out to Linus as a bug fixing.
>
> whome, I'd forgotten I had this. I stuck a cc:stable on the end and
> shall send it in to Linus in the next 3.10 batch, OK?
>

No problem for me at all. I bet it's OK for Christian as well, since
merging into 3.10-rc1 has no difference with merging into 3.10-rc2 or
later. It will eventually show up in 3.10 release.

Thanks,
-Bryan

2013-05-15 06:38:35

by Christian Gmeiner

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] leds-ot200: Fix misbehavior caused by wrong bit masks

2013/5/14 Bryan Wu <[email protected]>:
> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Andrew Morton
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 May 2013 10:12:04 -0700 Bryan Wu <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:06 AM, Christian Gmeiner
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> > 2013/5/12 Christian Gmeiner <[email protected]>:
>>> >> 2013/3/8 Christian Gmeiner <[email protected]>:
>>> >>> 2013/3/5 Bryan Wu <[email protected]>:
>>> >>>> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 11:40 PM, Christian Gmeiner
>>> >>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >>>>> ping
>>> >>>>> --
>>>
>>> I found this patch is still in linux-next, I'm not sure whether it
>>> will be merged into 3.10 like a bug fixing. We need to wait Andrew's
>>> reply. I'm OK to pick up and send out to Linus as a bug fixing.
>>
>> whome, I'd forgotten I had this. I stuck a cc:stable on the end and
>> shall send it in to Linus in the next 3.10 batch, OK?
>>
>
> No problem for me at all. I bet it's OK for Christian as well, since
> merging into 3.10-rc1 has no difference with merging into 3.10-rc2 or
> later. It will eventually show up in 3.10 release.
>

I am fine with that... it would be great if the patch will show up in 3.10.

thanks
--
Christian Gmeiner, MSc