On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 8:36 AM H. Nikolaus Schaller <h...@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.
