[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMi1Hd2BLB6H3QRLB5svRTkGoXaUeEsakNsmfCOjbDBcCEeqkA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2023 18:42:38 +0530
From: Amit Pundir <amit.pundir@...aro.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>,
Caleb Connolly <caleb.connolly@...aro.org>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: qcom-rpmh: Revert "regulator: qcom-rpmh: Use PROBE_FORCE_SYNCHRONOUS"
On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 at 18:07, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > > If you reorder the nodes in the device tree, I think it'll change the
> > > probe order. Does that affect anything? I'm wondering if there's some
> > > sort of delayed reaction from a previous regulator.
>
> > Hi, Bumping lvs1 and lvs2 regulators up to the top of the list in the
> > DTS https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5975#c4 does seem to work.
> > I can't reproduce the crash in 125 reboots so far, while I'm still
> > testing with only qcom-rpmh-regulator kernel module. I'll do some more
> > testing with full system running and send this re-ordering fix I can't
> > reproduce the crash further.
>
> So whatever the issue is here it's a timing/race condition - this seems
> like a workaround which works just now but it's not getting to whatever
> the actual issue is and that could come back.
Hi, I'm happy to debug this issue further or test run any
patches/ideas if that helps.
Regards,
Amit Pundir
Powered by blists - more mailing lists