[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMi1Hd3Cv1i06NhpY6Jqu7OvMpOdzTj6nTEMJNWLrMwMLsugZA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2023 00:38:13 +0530
From: Amit Pundir <amit.pundir@...aro.org>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc: Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Caleb Connolly <caleb.connolly@...aro.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
dt <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: qcom: sdm845-db845c: Move LVS regulator nodes up
On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 at 00:17, Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On 14/06/2023 20:18, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:
> > On 02.06.23 18:12, Amit Pundir wrote:
> >> Move lvs1 and lvs2 regulator nodes up in the rpmh-regulators
> >> list to workaround a boot regression uncovered by the upstream
> >> commit ad44ac082fdf ("regulator: qcom-rpmh: Revert "regulator:
> >> qcom-rpmh: Use PROBE_FORCE_SYNCHRONOUS"").
> >>
> >> Without this fix DB845c fail to boot at times because one of the
> >> lvs1 or lvs2 regulators fail to turn ON in time.
> >
> > /me waves friendly
> >
> > FWIW, as it's not obvious: this...
> >
> >> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAMi1Hd1avQDcDQf137m2auz2znov4XL8YGrLZsw5edb-NtRJRw@mail.gmail.com/
> >
> > ...is a report about a regression. One that we could still solve before
> > 6.4 is out. One I'll likely will point Linus to, unless a fix comes into
> > sight.
> >
> > When I noticed the reluctant replies to this patch I earlier today asked
> > in the thread with the report what the plan forward was:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAD%3DFV%3DV-h4EUKHCM9UivsFHRsJPY5sAiwXV3a1hUX9DUMkkxdg@mail.gmail.com/
> >
> > Dough there replied:
> >
> > ```
> > Of the two proposals made (the revert vs. the reordering of the dts),
> > the reordering of the dts seems better. It only affects the one buggy
> > board (rather than preventing us to move to async probe for everyone)
> > and it also has a chance of actually fixing something (changing the
> > order that regulators probe in rpmh-regulator might legitimately work
> > around the problem). That being said, just like the revert the dts
> > reordering is still just papering over the problem and is fragile /
> > not guaranteed to work forever.
> > ```
> >
> > Papering over obviously is not good, but has anyone a better idea to fix
> > this? Or is "not fixing" for some reason an viable option here?
> >
>
> I understand there is a regression, although kernel is not mainline
> (hash df7443a96851 is unknown) and the only solutions were papering the
> problem. Reverting commit is a temporary workaround. Moving nodes in DTS
> is not acceptable because it hides actual problem and only solves this
> one particular observed problem, while actual issue is still there. It
> would be nice to be able to reproduce it on real mainline with normal
> operating system (not AOSP) - with ramdiks/without/whatever. So far no
> one did it, right?
No, I did not try non-AOSP system yet. I'll try it tomorrow, if that
helps. With mainline hash.
Regards,
Amit Pundir
Powered by blists - more mailing lists