[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3f6cffc5-7600-25c9-d5f0-5891355c402e@oss.nxp.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 10:39:19 +0800
From: "Peng Fan (OSS)" <peng.fan@....nxp.com>
To: Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de>, Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>,
Dominique MARTINET <dominique.martinet@...ark-techno.com>,
"Alice Guo (OSS)" <alice.guo@....nxp.com>
Cc: Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
"robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@....com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [EXT] regression due to soc_device_match not handling defer (Was:
[PATCH v4 4/4] soc: imx8m: change to use platform driver)
Hi Lucas,
On 2021/6/24 18:36, Lucas Stach wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Am Donnerstag, dem 15.04.2021 um 01:33 +0000 schrieb Peng Fan:
>>> (Was: [PATCH v4 4/4] soc: imx8m: change to use platform driver)
>>>
>>> Alice Guo (OSS) wrote on Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 02:41:23AM +0000:
>>>> Thanks for reporting this issue, I'll check and add a fix to handle defer probe.
>>>
>>> I haven't seen any follow up on this, have you had a chance to take a look?
>>
>> We are trying to find a proper solution for this.
>>
>> The proper method might be make soc_device_match return probe defer,
>> and take early soc attr into consideration, but I am not sure this would win
>> maintainer's vote.
>>
>>> If this won't make it for 5.12 (in a couple of week probably?) would it make
>>> sense to revert 7d981405d0fd ("soc: imx8m: change to use platform
>>> driver") for now?
>>
>> Please no. We are targeting android GKI, make driver as modules.
>> And reverting to original method will also break kexec.
>>
>> I am on IRC #linux-imx, we could take more if you would like to.
>
> It seems this stalled. This regression totally breaks the kernel boot
> on all i.MX8M devices including the CAAM. 5.13 is about to be released,
> as the second upstream kernel release after 5.12 without a fix for this
> issue. What's the plan here?
>
> If there is no good solution small enough to be ported to the stable
> kernels in sight, I think the only sensible option here is to revert
> this change.
I not have time to touch this, maybe you could submit a revert for this.
Thanks,
Peng.
>
> Regards,
> Lucas
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists