RE: [PATCH v1 0/2] Fix the wrong order of phy callbacks

[Hongxing Zhu]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: 2022年8月30日 23:06
> To: Hongxing Zhu <hongxing.zhu@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; l.stach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx; lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx; vkoul@xxxxxxxxxx; Marcel
> Ziswiler <marcel.ziswiler@xxxxxxxxxxx>; kishon@xxxxxx;
> linux-pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dl-linux-imx
> <linux-imx@xxxxxxx>; kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-phy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] Fix the wrong order of phy callbacks
> 
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 07:50:55AM +0000, Hongxing Zhu wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: 2022年8月30日 15:16
> > > To: Hongxing Zhu <hongxing.zhu@xxxxxxx>; l.stach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > > bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx; lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx; vkoul@xxxxxxxxxx;
> > > Marcel Ziswiler <marcel.ziswiler@xxxxxxxxxxx>; kishon@xxxxxx
> > > Cc: linux-pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > > dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@xxxxxxx>; kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > > linux-phy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] Fix the wrong order of phy callbacks
> 
> The above quoting style makes it harder than necessary to follow conversation.
> See hints at:
> 
> 
> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wiki
> pedia.org%2Fwiki%2FPosting_style%23Interleaved_style&amp;data=05%7C01
> %7Chongxing.zhu%40nxp.com%7C70f38214c8f94c5932b408da8a991996%7C
> 686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C637974687433589209
> %7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLC
> JBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=ceZmDd
> sNeC9nU6qmt2qXR03fQn33vY%2FqvBIYzeWW7mk%3D&amp;reserved=0
> 
> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpeople.
> kernel.org%2Ftglx%2Fnotes-about-netiquette&amp;data=05%7C01%7Chongxi
> ng.zhu%40nxp.com%7C70f38214c8f94c5932b408da8a991996%7C686ea1d3b
> c2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C637974687433589209%7CUnkno
> wn%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1ha
> WwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=PkhpGGf7FcvsQTjc0
> hUMpr9Q4JVKeFoLR4foA6zt6jg%3D&amp;reserved=0
> 
> The ideal thing would be something like this, where there's a single line for
> each sender:
> 
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 07:50:55AM +0000, Hongxing Zhu wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 30, 2022, at 03:16PM, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
> > > On 30.08.22 05:47, Hongxing Zhu wrote:
> > > > Do you mean to squash this fix to the preview series?
> > > > I'm afraid that it's not easy to do that.
> > > > Because there are a lot of pci-imx6 code changes after
> > > > commit: 1aa97b002258 ("phy: freescale: pcie: Initialize the imx8
> > > > pcie standalone phy driver").
> > >
> > > The way I understand it, if a bisect ends up between your two
> > > patches, i.MX8M PCIe will be broken, whereas it worked before. I
> > > thus wonder if we shouldn't instead squash this series here into a
> > > single patch.
> >
> > Yes, it's a possible case when do the bisect.
> > Since these changes are belong to different git repo.
> 
> I don't understand the point about different git repos.  Patch 1/2 touches
> drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-imx6.c, patch 2/2 touches
> drivers/phy/freescale/phy-fsl-imx8m-pcie.c.  They're in different directories,
> of course, but are in the same Linux kernel source repo.
> 
> They're maintained by different people, but we can easily deal with that by
> getting an ack from one and merging via the other.
> 
> > It will bring maintain difficulties if these two patches are squashed
> > into a  single one.
> > It's difficult to make a choice.
> 
> What maintenance difficulty do you see here?  I think it looks
> *easier* if these are squashed -- that would avoid the possibility of backporting
> one without the other, which would certainly be a problem.
> 
> If a bisect lands after patch 1/2 but before 2/2, it looks like i.MX8M will break
> unnecessarily.
> 
> I think Ahmad is right that patches 1/2 and 2/2 should be squashed into a
> single patch to avoid this bisection hole.
Hi Bjorn:
Thanks for your comments.
My descriptions are not accurate enough. These two files are maintained by
 different people, I'm afraid to bring troubles to the maintainers if
I squash these two patch into a single one before.
Now, I understood the situation.
I'm glad to squash them to avoid the bisetion hole.
Thanks again.

Best Regards
Richard Zhu
> 
> Bjorn