[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7hms5zlp13.fsf@baylibre.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2025 14:54:16 -0700
From: Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>
To: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>, Saravana Kannan
<saravanak@...gle.com>, "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, Greg
Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>, Nicolas Frattaroli
<nicolas.frattaroli@...labora.com>, Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@...labora.com>, Sebin Francis
<sebin.francis@...com>, Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@...ow.org>, Tomi
Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...asonboard.com>, Jon Hunter
<jonathanh@...dia.com>, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] driver core: fw_devlink: Don't warn about
sync_state() pending
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org> writes:
> Due to the wider deployment of the ->sync_state() support, for PM domains
> for example, we are receiving reports about the sync_state() pending
> message that is being logged in fw_devlink_dev_sync_state(). In particular
> as it's printed at the warning level, which is questionable.
>
> Even if it certainly is useful to know that the ->sync_state() condition
> could not be met, there may be nothing wrong with it. For example, a driver
> may be built as module and are still waiting to be initialized/probed. For
> this reason let's move to the info level for now.
>
> Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
> Reported-by: Sebin Francis <sebin.francis@...com>
> Reported-by: Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@...ow.org>
> Reported-by: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
> Reviewed-by: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...asonboard.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists