[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9e86ce09-f0c4-f8c2-a910-b2b119adf071@mentor.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 16:45:12 +0300
From: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir_zapolskiy@...tor.com>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: Crashing 'kzm' target in next-20160913 due to 'gpio: mxc: shift
gpio_mxc_init() to subsys_initcall level'
Hi Linus,
On 09/15/2016 04:18 PM, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
> Hi Linus,
>
> On 09/15/2016 03:19 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
>>> On 09/14/2016 12:19 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 5:20 AM, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So, in other words, lots of bugs here. Nevertheless, I would suggest to
>>>>> keep
>>>>> using postcore_initcall(), at least until it is sure that all gpio
>>>>> clients handle
>>>>> -EPROBE_DEFER
>>>>> correctly.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So can I just revert this patch in isolation? None of the other patches
>>>> depend on it?
>>>>
>>> Good question, if this was part of a series.
>>
>> No response from author, so betting on it and reverting this in isolation
>> with your Reported-by.
>>
>
> please revert the revert :)
>
ok, the problem is recognized, but as I said it is not sufficient to revert
only that change, if it is selected to go by path of reverts commit
("gpio: mxc: add generic gpio request/free callbacks to pinctrl") from
your for-next branch should be reverted as well, the latter commit depends
on the reverted commit.
I have one i.MX31 powered board on hand, I'll start preparing a proper
fix for the issue.
--
With best wishes,
Vladimir
Powered by blists - more mailing lists