On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 06:23:00PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 18:06:01 +0100, > Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 12:18:03PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > > Geert reports that some drivers do rely on the device driver_data > > > field containing a pointer to the bridge structure at the point of > > > initialising the root port, while this has been recently changed to > > > contain some other data for the benefit of the Apple PCIe driver. > > > > > > This small series builds on top of Geert previously posted (and > > > included as a prefix for reference) fix for the Microchip driver, > > > which breaks the Apple driver. This is basically swapping a regression > > > for another, which isn't a massive deal at this stage, as the > > > follow-up patch fixes things for the Apple driver by adding extra > > > tracking. > > > > Is there a bisection hole between patches 1 and 2? > > > > 1: PCI: host-generic: Set driver_data before calling gen_pci_init() > > 2: PCI: apple: Add tracking of probed root ports > > > > If so, would it be practical to avoid the hole by reordering those > > patches? > > Sure, but you said you already had queued patch #1, and what is in > -rc1 already breaks Geert's box. So no matter the order, we break > something at some point. I did, but when I saw your problem report and subsequent updates, I put Geert's patch on hold. > If you want to only break one thing, then yes, swapping these two > patches is the correct thing to do. I swapped them and put them back on pci/for-linus for v6.16: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/pci/pci.git/log/?h=for-linus&id=ba74278c638d
