Re: [PATCH 10/10] drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86: Remove redundant dev_err_probe()

["Luca Ceresoli" <luca.ceresoli@bootlin.com>]

Hi Doug,

On Fri Jul 31, 2026 at 4:43 PM CEST, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 12:16 AM Luca Ceresoli
> <luca.ceresoli@bootlin.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Doug,
>>
>> On Thu Jul 30, 2026 at 11:17 PM CEST, Doug Anderson wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 7:11 PM Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Jul 23, 2026 at 6:17 AM Pan Chuang <panchuang@vivo.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Since commit
>> >> > 55b48e23f5c4 ("genirq/devres: Add error handling in devm_request_*_irq()"),
>> >> > devm_request_threaded_irq() automatically logs detailed error messages on
>> >> > failure. Remove the now-redundant driver-specific dev_err_probe() call.
>> >> >
>> >> > Signed-off-by: Pan Chuang <panchuang@vivo.com>
>> >> > ---
>> >> >  drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c | 2 +-
>> >> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >>
>> >> Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
>> >>
>> >> I'll plan to apply this to drm-misc-next in ~1 week unless anything comes up.
>> >
>> > Pushed to drm-misc-next:
>> >
>> > [10/10] drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86: Remove redundant dev_err_probe()
>> >         commit: 9c950822f0fa923ccd344d7a143872d25efe89a3
>>
>> Out of curiosity, did you apply using b4?
>>
>> I see the commit does not have the R-by I gave to the cover letter a few
>> days ago, and assumed b4 would pick it up as it does when applying the full
>> series. If my assumption was wrong, maybe it's an issue to report to the b4
>> project?
>
> Oops, sorry about that. I actually found your response to the cover
> later as I continued to work through my inbox backlog, but I had
> already pushed the patch. :( I was also surprised that b4 hadn't
> picked it up...

No big deal, I was just curions about the process.

> I applied w/
>
> b4 am -P_ 20260723131649.134127-11-panchuang@vivo.com

I didn't know about '-P_', I normally use a range, such as '-P 1..3' or
just '-P 10'. And, very interestingly, there is a difference:

b4 shazam -P_  20260723131649.134127-11-panchuang@vivo.com -> does not take the R-by from the cover
b4 shazam -P10 20260723131649.134127-11-panchuang@vivo.com -> takes the R-by from the cover

> Running it again still doesn't find your review:
>
> $ b4 am -P_ 20260723131649.134127-11-panchuang@vivo.com
> Grabbing thread from
> lore.kernel.org/all/20260723131649.134127-11-panchuang@vivo.com/t.mbox.gz
> Analyzing 4 messages in the thread
> Looking for additional code-review trailers on lore.kernel.org
> Analyzing 16 code-review messages
> Checking attestation on all messages, may take a moment...
> ---
>   ✓ [PATCH 10/10] drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86: Remove redundant dev_err_probe()
>     ✓ Signed: DKIM/vivo.com
>     + Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> (✓
> DKIM/chromium.org)
>   ---
>   NOTE: install patatt for end-to-end signature verification
> ---
> Total patches: 1 (cherrypicked: <20260723131649.134127-11-panchuang@vivo.com>)
> ---
>  Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260723131649.134127-11-panchuang@vivo.com
>
>
> Ah, if I don't do the "-P_" then it finds your tags, but I don't know
> of a way to pick up just one patch other than that... Even "b4 am -t
> -P_" doesn't find your tags... I guess that's by design?

So, looks like '-P <num>' is the answer. :)

Luca

--
Luca Ceresoli, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com