Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <2D7916FA-678F-4236-B478-C953CADF2FFA@goldelico.com>
 <CAGngYiXgc_m2A7Wihxuhzm-u4qH-JZgxHjke653zvyT45jMU7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <4AC29229-9542-4E77-B993-217E29C7E209@goldelico.com> <CAGngYiVoj4Gpid5W10pJfiE1FWY=294TJ4fE=CDG4=HwH0WrJw@mail.gmail.com>
 <460191B6-EDD3-46DE-A1ED-47F758F111E8@goldelico.com>
In-Reply-To: <460191B6-EDD3-46DE-A1ED-47F758F111E8@goldelico.com>
From:   Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 1 Dec 2020 09:08:34 -0500
Message-ID: <CAGngYiVU5Udm6zUzrJPNF-V+uchhiv0-tWbUzb+_aSYVF=Dpug@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] SPI broken for SPI based panel drivers
To:     "H. Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@goldelico.com>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>,
        Discussions about the Letux Kernel 
        <letux-kernel@openphoenux.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 8:36 AM H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@goldelico.com> wrote:
>
> Well I only complain because you wrote that you knew that it may
> break something else. So it is known to induces a regression.

We knew that it would fix an important, common problem, but
we also knew that there is always a possibility of breaking
something else when making a change to the core.

>
> Maybe printing a "please check your spi setup" in spi_setup() with
> a comment hinting at your patch would have saved me a lot of time.
>

You could ask the maintainer for such a policy, but I fear that soon
the code would emit too many "please check" messages.

>
> Well, I am sort of maintainer of a vendor kernel that tries to
> follow linus/master and fix things before we release an LTS.

Makes sense, I understand your situation better now.

>
> Anyways, there is still time until v5.10.0 to fix it better than by
> a revert.

When we find a fix, it'll have a Fixes: tag, which means it'll
automatically be applied to every supported kernel, including
v5.10 even if already released.

>
> Hope that you have an idea soon. I am happy to test any suggestions/patches/alternatives
> better than a simple revert.
>

Thank you, that's great. I may come back with a few suggestions
for you to test this week.