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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2022 17:49:41 -0700 From: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com> To: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com> Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>, David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@...roid.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "open list:THERMAL" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, Linux IOMMU <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>, Alexander Stein <alexander.stein@...tq-group.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/9] PM: domains: Delete usage of driver_deferred_probe_check_state() On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 12:12 AM Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com> wrote: > > * Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com> [220701 16:00]: > > Also, looks like both with the initcall change for prm, and the patch > > below, there seems to be also another problem where my test devices no > > longer properly idle somehow compared to reverting the your two patches > > in next. > > Sorry looks like was a wrong conclusion. While trying to track down this > issue, I cannot reproduce it. So I don't see issues idling with either > the initcall change or your test patch. > > Not sure what caused my earlier tests to fail though. Maybe a config > change to enable more debugging, or possibly some kind of warm reset vs > cold reset type issue. Thanks for getting back to me about the false alarm. OK, so it looks like my patch to drivers/of/property.c fixed the issue for you. In that case, let me test that a bit more thoroughly on my end to make sure it's not breaking any existing functionality. And if it's not breaking, I'll land that in the kernel eventually. Might be a bit too late for 5.19. I'm considering temporarily reverting my series depending on how the rest of the issues from my series go. -Saravana
Powered by blists - more mailing lists