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: <20210927175944.3381314-1-briannorris@chromium.org>
 <20210927105928.v2.1.Ic2904d37f30013a7f3d8476203ad3733c186827e@changeid> <CAMcCCgS_r17Lj_qPX9TdH3=7D_tiXu9OzL=dDNS+9MZyOUv-+Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMcCCgS_r17Lj_qPX9TdH3=7D_tiXu9OzL=dDNS+9MZyOUv-+Q@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Date:   Mon, 27 Sep 2021 12:57:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+ASDXMyaWfg07UEcbN_N4WBK=PzVO+SnwZ=VnjL2hJDWvOxDw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] drm/rockchip: dsi: Hold pm-runtime across bind/unbind
To:     Tom Hebb <tommyhebb@gmail.com>
Cc:     =?UTF-8?Q?Heiko_St=C3=BCbner?= <heiko@sntech.de>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@chromium.org>,
        "open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." <linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org>,
        Sandy Huang <hjc@rock-chips.com>,
        Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        aleksandr.o.makarov@gmail.com, stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
        =?UTF-8?B?TsOtY29sYXMgRiAuIFIgLiBBIC4gUHJhZG8=?= 
        <nfraprado@collabora.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 12:18 PM Tom Hebb <tommyhebb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Reviewed-by: Thomas Hebb <tommyhebb@gmail.com>

Thanks!

> Thank you for catching this, and sorry that my original fix broke things.
> There had actually been a report of this breakage from my patch, but I
> missed that email until it had already been merged and then didn't have
> time to follow up on it. Totally my bad.

No worries. It was a 1 step forward, 1 step backward kind of a thing
anyway -- things were broken in many cases before your patch too (with
very similar-looking symptoms) -- so the net result is still good,
having both issues fixed.

I'm not sure how that ideally should have been handled [1], but it's
totally fair to not have time to follow up on everything. At the
worst, we could have reverted things; but again, I'm pretty sure
things were broken just as well without your fix, just with a
different root cause.

Regards,
Brian

[1] Don't accept (or, revert?) your bugfix until what may or may not
have been a regression is fixed? I'm not sure.