[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200213200008.GB3815621@kroah.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 12:00:08 -0800
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
Cc: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>, Timur Tabi <timur@...nel.org>,
Li Yang <leoyang.li@....com>, Qiang Zhao <qiang.zhao@....com>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, Scott Wood <oss@...error.net>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] serial: cpm_uart: call cpm_muram_init before registering
console
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 12:43:42PM +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> Christophe reports that powerpc 8xx silently fails to 5.6-rc1. It turns
> out I was wrong about nobody relying on the lazy initialization of the
> cpm/qe muram in commit b6231ea2b3c6 (soc: fsl: qe: drop broken lazy
> call of cpm_muram_init()).
>
> Rather than reinstating the somewhat dubious lazy call (initializing a
> currently held spinlock, and implicitly doing a GFP_KERNEL under that
> spinlock), make sure that cpm_muram_init() is called early enough - I
> thought the calls from the subsys_initcalls were good enough, but when
> used by console drivers, that's obviously not the
> case. cpm_muram_init() is safe to call twice (there's an early return
> if it is already initialized), so keep the call from cpm_init() - in
> case SERIAL_CPM_CONSOLE=n.
>
> Reported-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>
> Fixes: b6231ea2b3c6 (soc: fsl: qe: drop broken lazy call of cpm_muram_init())
> Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
> ---
>
> Christophe, can I get you to add a formal Tested-by?
>
> I'm not sure which tree this should go through.
I can take it, thanks.
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists