[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <849adf54-e544-4924-822f-83566421c09f@notapiano>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2024 09:04:12 -0500
From: Nícolas F. R. A. Prado <nfraprado@...labora.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@...omium.org>,
AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] delay: Fix ndelay() spuriously treated as udelay()
On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 04:29:31PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> A recent rework on delay functions wrongly ended up calling __udelay()
> instead of __ndelay() for nanosecond delays, increasing those by 1000.
>
> As a result hangs have been observed on boot
>
> Restore the right function calls.
>
> Fixes: 19e2d91d8cb1 ("delay: Rework udelay and ndelay")
> Reported-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@...omium.org>
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Tested-by: Nícolas F. R. A. Prado <nfraprado@...labora.com>
It's possible to boot again on MT8195-Cherry-Tomato with this patch applied on
top of next-20241128.
Thanks,
Nícolas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists