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

"Luca Ceresoli" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.freedesktop.lists.dri-devel,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel
Message-ID <[email protected]>
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
> <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Jul 23, 2026 at 6:17 AM Pan Chuang <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>
>> >> > ---
>> >> >  drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c | 2 +-
>> >> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >>
>> >> Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <[email protected]>
>> >>
>> >> 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_ [email protected]

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_  [email protected] -> does not take the R-by from the cover
b4 shazam -P10 [email protected] -> takes the R-by from the cover

> Running it again still doesn't find your review:
>
> $ b4 am -P_ [email protected]
> Grabbing thread from
> lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/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 <[email protected]> (✓
> DKIM/chromium.org)
>   ---
>   NOTE: install patatt for end-to-end signature verification
> ---
> Total patches: 1 (cherrypicked: <[email protected]>)
> ---
>  Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
>
>
> 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
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.