[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bab4d845-330e-c7f0-5dac-a96caa93a39e@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2022 20:25:57 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@....ru>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com>,
Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
MTD Maling List <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-spi <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] memory: renesas-rpc-if: Move resource acquisition to
.probe()
On 29/06/2022 19:55, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
>
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 7:44 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
>> On 27/06/2022 17:31, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>> While the acquired resources are tied to the lifetime of the RPC-IF core
>>> device (through the use of managed resource functions), the actual
>>> resource acquisition is triggered from the HyperBus and SPI child
>>> drivers. Due to this mismatch, unbinding and rebinding the child
>>> drivers manually fails with -EBUSY:
>>>
>>> # echo rpc-if-hyperflash > /sys/bus/platform/drivers/rpc-if-hyperflash/unbind
>>> # echo rpc-if-hyperflash > /sys/bus/platform/drivers/rpc-if-hyperflash/bind
>>> rpc-if ee200000.spi: can't request region for resource [mem 0xee200000-0xee2001ff]
>>> rpc-if-hyperflash: probe of rpc-if-hyperflash failed with error -16
>>>
>>> Fix this by moving all resource acquisition to the core driver's probe
>>> routine.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>
>>
>> This looks like a fix, so how about putting it as first in the series,
>> so backporting is easy/automatic?
>
> Unfortunately that is not as simple as it sounds, as this really
> depends on patch 4.
You sure? Except rebasing I don't see that. rpcif_sw_init() received the
rpcif so it had access to all fields.
> I agree patches 1-3 could be moved later, if you think it is worthwhile.
This would not be enough, it has to be first patch to be backportable.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists