[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0a9874d4-29e4-477e-a675-c4534658f9d9@oss.qualcomm.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2025 10:15:14 +0200
From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, Taniya Das
<quic_tdas@...cinc.com>,
Taniya Das <taniya.das@....qualcomm.com>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Ajit Pandey <ajit.pandey@....qualcomm.com>,
Imran Shaik <imran.shaik@....qualcomm.com>,
Jagadeesh Kona <jagadeesh.kona@....qualcomm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: defconfig: Change CONFIG_SM_TCSRCC_8750 from m to
y
On 10/17/25 8:54 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 17/10/2025 07:56, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 17/10/2025 07:49, Taniya Das wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/17/2025 10:51 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 17/10/2025 07:16, Taniya Das wrote:
[...]
>>> We have tried booting up recently and and that is what we observed. The
>>> patch from 'm' to 'y' helps the UFS probe is successful and the rootfs
>>> is picked from ufs partitions. I will add these fail & success log
>>> snippets in the commit text.
>>
>> That's not enough. You need to explain why UFS fails. After explaining
>> this, I guess bug in UFS would be exposed thus that one should be fixed.
>> You just provided band-aid without fixing the real problem.
>>
>> NAK
>
>
> ... and to prove your analysis is wrong (because your setup is likely
> having issues) I even tested now linux next with defconfig. Works all
> fine on next-20251013. You did not share which kernel even has this
> issue, maybe some downstream tree?
Is there a chance you have the TCSR module packed in initramfs and
Taniya doesn't?
Konrad
Powered by blists - more mailing lists