Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 30 Mar 2022 17:47:55 +0200 | Subject | Re: Bug 215726 - si2157.c: mention name of the missing firmware file | From | Piotr Chmura <> |
| |
W dniu 30.03.2022 o 12:44, Thorsten Leemhuis pisze: > On 30.03.22 12:35, Piotr Chmura wrote: >> W dniu 30.03.2022 o 11:55, Thorsten Leemhuis pisze: >>> On 29.03.22 21:21, Robert Schlabbach wrote: >>>> the patch linked in the bugzilla ticket: >>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-media/6f84b7f4-3ede-ae55-e99b-a9d4108c80e2@gmail.com/ >>>> >>>> should indeed fix the issue. >>> Ahh, the comment mentioning it was added shortly after I sent my mail. >>> #regzbot monitor: >>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-media/6f84b7f4-3ede-ae55-e99b-a9d4108c80e2@gmail.com/ >>> >>> >>> Adding Piotr, the patches' author to the CC, who also replied. >>> >>> BTW: that patch is afaics missing a Fixes tag specifying the culprit and >>> a `Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 5.17.x` tag to make sure it's quickly >>> backported to the stable tree, as among others explained here: >>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/handling-regressions.rst >>> >> Sorry for my inconvenience. > Don't worry, everything fine. In a case like... > >> I just fixed my device and wanted to share >> solution with the "world". I'm not familiar with all kernel development >> convention (yet). > ...this someone else should point such details out to the submitter > and/or add these tags when applying the patch. > > @Robert: Do you know which commit causes this regression and could tell > us for a proper Fixes: tag? Fixes: 1c35ba3bf97213538b82067acc0f23f18e652226
Cheers, Piotr Chmura > Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat) > > P.S.: As the Linux kernel's regression tracker I'm getting a lot of > reports on my table. I can only look briefly into most of them and lack > knowledge about most of the areas they concern. I thus unfortunately > will sometimes get things wrong or miss something important. I hope > that's not the case here; if you think it is, don't hesitate to tell me > in a public reply, it's in everyone's interest to set the public record > straight. > > >>>> The error was that the rom_id and required >>>> fields were swapped in the table, so the non-zero rom_id was taken as a >>>> "true" required boolean value, thus incorrectly evaluating that the >>>> chip requires a firmware file to operate when in fact it does not. >>>> I have tested the patch and found it worked for me. But I do not know >>>> how to push this further along: >>>> https://patchwork.linuxtv.org/project/linux-media/patch/6f84b7f4-3ede-ae55-e99b-a9d4108c80e2@gmail.com/ >>>> >>> Mauro, what's up here? The patch fixes a regression and thus afaics >>> should quickly find its way towards mainline to get it into the stable >>> tree, as explained in the (bran new) document linked above. >>> >>> Ciao, Thorsten >>> >>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 29. März 2022 um 10:33 Uhr >>>> Von: "Thorsten Leemhuis" <regressions@leemhuis.info> >>>> An: "Antti Palosaari" <crope@iki.fi>, "Mauro Carvalho Chehab" >>>> <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>, "Robert Schlabbach" <robert_s@gmx.net> >>>> Cc: "regressions@lists.linux.dev" <regressions@lists.linux.dev>, >>>> az0123456@gmx.de, "Linux Media Mailing List" >>>> <linux-media@vger.kernel.org>, "Linux Kernel Mailing List" >>>> <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> >>>> Betreff: Bug 215726 - si2157.c: mention name of the missing firmware >>>> file >>>> Hi, this is your Linux kernel regression tracker. >>>> >>>> I noticed a regression report in bugzilla.kernel.org that afaics nobody >>>> acted upon since it was reported about a week ago, that's why I decided >>>> to forward it to the lists and all people that seemed to be relevant >>>> here. To quote from https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215726 : >>>> >>>>> I get the following error messages when trying to use si2157.ko in >>>>> linux 5.17: >>>>> si2157 13-0060: found a 'Silicon Labs Si2157-A30 ROM 0x50' >>>>> si2157 13-0060: Can't continue without a firmware >>>>> I did work in linux 5.16.16 without a firmware file. Unfortunately >>>>> the driver does not tell me the name of the missing firmware file. >>>> Could somebody take a look into this? Or was this discussed somewhere >>>> else already? Or even fixed? >>>> >>>> >>
| |