On 2/16/26 14:37, Matt Coster wrote: > On 16/02/2026 11:38, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> On 2/16/26 11:58, Matt Coster wrote: >>> On 16/02/2026 10:11, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >>> >>> We're currently trying to force this issue to reproduce on hardware we >>> have on hand; we'd like to see it fixed properly as much as anyone. >> >> Yeah, no worries, I never doubted that. But getting things properly fixed >> can mean "revert, fix, reapply" when it comes to regressions in Linux -- >> which is something that should not be seen as something bad, as Linus said >> himself (see below)! >> >>> From our side at least, I don't believe this is a regression at all. >> In the end what matters is: some change afaics caused systems to not work >> anymore that used to be working -- that makes it a regression my the Linux >> kernels standards. And those by the same standards must be fixed, ideally >> quickly. Find a few quotes on that from Linus below that explains this >> better. > I feel like I should reiterate that the commit we're talking about > reverting is fundamental to support for one of the only two platforms > currently supported.
That might or might not be relevant, see the "back and forth" section from the Linus quotes. > And that the changes to add "support" (just > bindings and DT) for the affected Renesas platforms came several months > *after* this. Ohh? That might change things then. I relied on the info from Geert and Marek – and would be glad if you guys could sort this out, as you are the experts here (and I already got myself way deeper involved then I wanted to). > [...] Ciao, Thorsten
