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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <87y60vrkuv.fsf@ti.com>
Date:	Tue, 21 Jun 2011 13:27:20 -0700
From:	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>
To:	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	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

Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com> writes:

> Hi Kevin,
>
> 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.
> Fair enough.
>
>  
>> 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?
> I did a revert in my tree.

Great, that's the cleanest solution IMO.  Thanks!

Kevin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/