[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20230724115428.d191186852c0bd0ee0d78398@hugovil.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2023 11:54:28 -0400
From: Hugo Villeneuve <hugo@...ovil.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
jirislaby@...nel.org, jringle@...dpoint.com,
isaac.true@...onical.com, jesse.sung@...onical.com,
tomasz.mon@...lingroup.com, l.perczak@...lintechnologies.com,
linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
Hugo Villeneuve <hvilleneuve@...onoff.com>,
stable@...r.kernel.org,
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
Lech Perczak <lech.perczak@...lingroup.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v8 06/10] serial: sc16is7xx: fix regression with
GPIO configuration
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 17:15:26 +0200
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 22, 2023 at 10:47:24AM -0400, Hugo Villeneuve wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 13:24:19 -0600
> > Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 10:19 AM Hugo Villeneuve <hugo@...ovil.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: Hugo Villeneuve <hvilleneuve@...onoff.com>
> > > >
> > > > Commit 679875d1d880 ("sc16is7xx: Separate GPIOs from modem control lines")
> > > > and commit 21144bab4f11 ("sc16is7xx: Handle modem status lines")
> > > > changed the function of the GPIOs pins to act as modem control
> > > > lines without any possibility of selecting GPIO function.
> > >
> > > Requiring a new DT property is not fixing a kernel regression. You
> > > should be returning the kernel to original behavior and then have a
> > > new DT property for new behavior.
> >
> > Hi Rob,
> > please read the entire patch history starting from V1
> > and you will understand why this course of action was
> > not selected.
>
> That's not going to happen, sorry, you need to explain it here, in this
> patch series, why a specific action is being taken over another one, as
> no one has time to go dig through past history, sorry.
Hi Rob,
I initially submitted a patch to revert the kernel to original
behavior, but it created more problems because the patch was
unfortunately split in two separate patches, and mixed with other non
closely-related changes. It was also noted to me that reverting to the
old behavior would break things for some users.
It was suggested to me by a more experienced kernel developer to
"suggest a fix, instead of hurrying a revert":
https://lkml.org/lkml/2023/5/17/758
That is what we decided to do in the end, and it worked quite well.
Hugo.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists