linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mfd: omap: fix the crash during omap ehci or ohci driver initialization

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20110620221330.GD28225@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com>
Date:	Tue, 21 Jun 2011 01:13:31 +0300
From:	Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>
To:	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>
Cc:	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>, Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>,
	Keshava Munegowda <keshava_mgowda@...com>,
	linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gadiyar@...com, parthab@...ia.ti.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: omap: fix the crash during omap ehci or ohci driver
 initialization

Hi,

On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 03:06:01PM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com> writes:
> 
> > Hi Felipe,
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 04:28:52PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> 
> >> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 03:26:26PM +0200, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 07:12:19PM +0530, Keshava Munegowda wrote:
> >> > > From: Keshava Munegowda <Keshava_mgowda@...com>
> >> > > 
> >> > > Oops are produced during initialization of ehci and ohci
> >> > > drivers. This is because the run time pm apis are used by
> >> > > the driver but the corresponding hwmod structures and
> >> > > initialization is not merged. 
> >> > You mean they're currently checked in a different tree ? Is that a
> >> > public one?
> >> 
> >> it was supposed to go via linux-omap tree but the patches got lost in
> >> the limbo :-(
> > Then shouldn't those patches be the ones to be sent to Linus as a fix for 3.0 ?
> 
> If they were ready, maybe.  But those patches still need important work
> (and review) and are not "fix" material but need to wait until the next
> merge window.
> 
> Basically, the original patch should not have been submitted to mainline
> until the runtime PM support was ready, so the correct short term fix is
> to simply revert.
> 
> Also, to echo the question from Dima Zavin:
> 
> Why isn't this just a simple revert of the original patch?

good question. git revert 7e6502d577106fb5b202bbaac64c5f1b065e6daa
is much better.

-- 
balbi

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (491 bytes)