linux-kernel - Re: [Patch v3 10/11] memory: tegra: handle no BWMGR MRQ support in BPMP

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]

Date:   Thu, 23 Mar 2023 10:58:18 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
Cc:     Sumit Gupta <sumitg@...dia.com>, treding@...dia.com,
        dmitry.osipenko@...labora.com, viresh.kumar@...aro.org,
        rafael@...nel.org, jonathanh@...dia.com, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        lpieralisi@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        mmaddireddy@...dia.com, kw@...ux.com, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
        vidyas@...dia.com, sanjayc@...dia.com, ksitaraman@...dia.com,
        ishah@...dia.com, bbasu@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [Patch v3 10/11] memory: tegra: handle no BWMGR MRQ support in
 BPMP

On 23/03/2023 10:55, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 06:50:23PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 20/03/2023 19:24, Sumit Gupta wrote:
>>> If BPMP-FW doesn't support 'MRQ_BWMGR_INT', then the MC Client driver
>>> probe fails with 'EPROBE_DEFER' which it receives on calling the func
>>> 'devm_of_icc_get()'. Fix this by initializing the ICC even if the MRQ
>>> is missing and return 'EINVAL' from 'icc_set_bw()' instead of passing
>>> the request to BPMP-FW later when the BW request is made by client.
>>>
>>> Fixes: ("memory: tegra: add interconnect support for DRAM scaling in Tegra234")
>>
>> That's not correct tag.
>>
>> Anyway, send fixes separately.
> 
> I think this was a bit confusing. This fixes an issue that was
> introduced in a patch earlier in this series, so it's probably better to
> squash it into that patch rather than have a separate fix patch in the
> same series.
> 

Yeah, it is quite confusing to send buggy code and immediately fix it...
Introducing known bugs is actually non-bisectable and harming.

Best regards,
Krzysztof