[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ed29cd18-81de-f90d-474b-30612418a67e@free.fr>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 14:43:36 +0200
From: Marc Gonzalez <marc.w.gonzalez@...e.fr>
To: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>
Cc: MSM <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Evan Green <evgreen@...omium.org>,
Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@...eaurora.org>,
Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@...aro.org>,
Stanimir Varbanov <svarbanov@...sol.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] phy: qcom-qmp: Correct READY_STATUS poll break condition
On 13/06/2019 11:10, Marc Gonzalez wrote:
> Here are my observations for a 8998 board:
>
> 1) If I apply only the readl_poll_timeout() fix (not the mask_pcs_ready fixup)
> qcom_pcie_probe() fails with a timeout in phy_init.
> => this is in line with your regression analysis.
>
> 2) Your patch also fixes a long-standing bug in UFS init whereby sending
> lots of information to the console during phy init would lead to an
> incorrectly diagnosed time-out.
>
> Good stuff!
>
> Reviewed-by: Marc Gonzalez <marc.w.gonzalez@...e.fr>
> Tested-by: Marc Gonzalez <marc.w.gonzalez@...e.fr>
Hello Kishon,
Could you take this patch through your tree?
It fixes a pair of nasty bugs.
I do have a follow-up (trivial) patch on top of this one:
https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1088044/
What are your thoughts on the usleep_range issue?
https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1088035/
Regards.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists