[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d4b04bac-52e8-2780-cd83-e0a3d56c3c8d@nvidia.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2023 18:16:03 +0530
From: Sumit Gupta <sumitg@...dia.com>
To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
CC: <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>,
Sumit Gupta <sumitg@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch v3 10/11] memory: tegra: handle no BWMGR MRQ support in
BPMP
On 23/03/23 15:32, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 10:58:18AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I don't think this was done purposefully but rather as a way of more
> clearly showing what was changed. This is also an issue that can only
> happen on certain boards, so it's easy to miss.
>
> But yeah, this is bad for bisectibility.
>
> Sumit, please merge this into the patch that you reference in the Fixes:
> tag along with the fix in patch 11.
>
> Thierry
Sure, I will merge this change in parent patch and send v4.
Thanks,
Sumit
Powered by blists - more mailing lists