linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Revert "bus: ti-sysc: Probe for l4_wkup and l4

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: <20250313202129.0dcfc44e@akair>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2025 20:21:29 +0100
From: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info>
To: "A. Sverdlin" <alexander.sverdlin@...mens.com>
Cc: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, Aaro
 Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@....fi>, Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>, Roger
 Quadros <rogerq@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "bus: ti-sysc: Probe for l4_wkup and l4_cfg
 interconnect devices first"

Hi Alexander,

Am Thu, 13 Mar 2025 10:47:06 +0100
schrieb "A. Sverdlin" <alexander.sverdlin@...mens.com>:

> From: Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@...mens.com>
> 
> This reverts commit 4700a00755fb5a4bb5109128297d6fd2d1272ee6.
> 
> It brakes target-module@...00050 ("ti,sysc-omap2") probe on AM62x in a case
> when minimally-configured system tries to network-boot:
> 
brakes or breaks? To unterstand the severity of the issue...

> [    6.888776] probe of 2b300050.target-module returned 517 after 258 usecs
> [   17.129637] probe of 2b300050.target-module returned 517 after 708 usecs
> [   17.137397] platform 2b300050.target-module: deferred probe pending: (reason unknown)
> [   26.878471] Waiting up to 100 more seconds for network.
> 
> Arbitrary 10 deferrals is really not a solution to any problem.

So there is a point where no more probe of anything pending are
triggered and therefore things are not probed?

> Stable mmc enumeration can be achiever by filling /aliases node properly
> (4700a00755fb commit's rationale).
>
yes, it does not look like a clean solution. And we have the
proper aliases node in many places. What I am a bit wondering about is
what kind of sleeping dogs we are going to wake up by this revert. So I
think this should be tested a lot esp. about possible pm issues.

Not every dependency in the sysc probe area is properly defined.

Regards,
Andreas