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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <402d2059-d0ab-2229-870c-f511cd6f29ee@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Jun 2022 18:11:18 +0200
From:   Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
        Stephan Gerhold <stephan@...hold.net>,
        linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
        Ferry Toth <ftoth@...londelft.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] phy: ti: tusb1210: Don't check for write errors
 when powering on

Hi,

On 6/15/22 13:51, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 05:49:22PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> On 6/14/22 15:01, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 01:23:21PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>>> On 6/13/22 18:08, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>>> [   35.126397] tusb1210 dwc3.0.auto.ulpi: GPIO lookup for consumer reset
>>> [   35.126418] tusb1210 dwc3.0.auto.ulpi: using ACPI for GPIO lookup
>>> [   35.126455] tusb1210 dwc3.0.auto.ulpi: using lookup tables for GPIO lookup
>>> [   35.126465] tusb1210 dwc3.0.auto.ulpi: No GPIO consumer reset found
>>> [   35.126476] tusb1210 dwc3.0.auto.ulpi: GPIO lookup for consumer cs
>>> [   35.126485] tusb1210 dwc3.0.auto.ulpi: using ACPI for GPIO lookup
>>> [   35.126538] tusb1210 dwc3.0.auto.ulpi: using lookup tables for GPIO lookup
>>> [   35.126548] tusb1210 dwc3.0.auto.ulpi: No GPIO consumer cs found
>>> [   40.534107] tusb1210 dwc3.0.auto.ulpi: error -110 writing val 0x41 to reg 0x80
>>>
>>> (I put 5000 ms there to be sure)
>>>
>>>> I'm fine with going with this workaround patch to fix things.
>>
>> Ok, so I guess we should just apply this workaround patch to make
>> the error non fatal. Still would be good to dig a little deeper one
>> of these days and see what is going on here...
> 
> Can you give a formal tag?

Sure:

Acked-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>

Regards,

Hans

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ