linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] phy: ti: tusb1210: Don't check for write errors when powering on

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YqnHpXvZJEfhX21/@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Jun 2022 14:51:01 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.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

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?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko