linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] interconnect: qcom: sm8450: Revert "interconnect: qcom: sm8450: Enable sync

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]

Message-ID: <fec973b4-61ee-42e0-bb62-5001f9258ade@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2024 18:52:27 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
 Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>, Georgi Djakov <djakov@...nel.org>,
 Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] interconnect: qcom: sm8450: Revert "interconnect: qcom:
 sm8450: Enable sync_state"

On 15/01/2024 17:39, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 15.01.2024 16:55, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 15/01/2024 16:38, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>> On 15.01.2024 16:34, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> Revert commit 16862f1b2110 ("interconnect: qcom: sm8450: Enable
>>>> sync_state"), because it causes serial console to corrupt, later freeze
>>>> and become either entirely corrupted or only print without accepting any
>>>> input.
>>>>
>>>> Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org>
>>>> Fixes: 16862f1b2110 ("interconnect: qcom: sm8450: Enable sync_state")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
>>>> ---
>>>
>>> What's the board you're testing this on? And kernel base revision?
>>
>> HDK8450
>>
>>>
>>> The symptoms you mentioned happened for me with this on some recent
>>> -next:
>>
>> This was bisected, so all mainline kernels with this patch. Reverting
>> this patch helps (on top of that commit or on next).
> 
> I don't quite get your answer. Was reverting \/ the solution for you?

Yes...

Best regards,
Krzysztof