From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1923DC43331 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 10:43:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDC1720748 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 10:43:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728956AbgC3Knm (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Mar 2020 06:43:42 -0400 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:26454 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728912AbgC3Knm (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Mar 2020 06:43:42 -0400 IronPort-SDR: 9vD//3wRp0uiwiAWTFBn2VEfbc04iqkKNRVwgobCD24G/KasMYrH4tHI5ZZjIqPs6cELvTcNtD lcd3MON3X/hw== X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 30 Mar 2020 03:43:41 -0700 IronPort-SDR: wwUk+Jwnmz7vf91weyeKOqaGAh9J/oT3rFSilVdm0crTq+p/bvI0oy+69NMMUJGR3TGHDRKVQt zBxK7pVfY7Sw== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.72,324,1580803200"; d="scan'208";a="294549884" Received: from smile.fi.intel.com (HELO smile) ([10.237.68.40]) by FMSMGA003.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 30 Mar 2020 03:43:38 -0700 Received: from andy by smile with local (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from ) id 1jIrtM-00EAdz-DH; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 13:43:40 +0300 Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 13:43:40 +0300 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Sudeep Holla Cc: Naresh Kamboju , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Robin Murphy , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux PM , Basil Eljuse , lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org, Linux-Next Mailing List , fntoth@gmail.com, Arnd Bergmann , Anders Roxell Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] driver core: Replace open-coded list_last_entry() Message-ID: <20200330104340.GO1922688@smile.fi.intel.com> References: <20200324122023.9649-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <20200324122023.9649-3-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <028b636f-6e0f-c36a-aa4e-6a16d936fc6a@arm.com> <20200330095707.GA10432@bogus> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200330095707.GA10432@bogus> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-next@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:13:21AM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 07:40:25PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote: > > On 2020-03-27 5:56 pm, Naresh Kamboju wrote: > > > The kernel warning noticed on arm64 juno-r2 device running linux > > > next-20200326 and next-20200327 > > > > I suspect this is the correct expected behaviour manifesting. If you're > > using the upstream juno-r2.dts, the power domain being waited for here is > > provided by SCPI, however unless you're using an SCP firmware from at least > > 3 years ago you won't actually have SCPI since they switched it to the newer > > SCMI protocol, which is not yet supported upstream for Juno. See what > > happened earlier in the log: > > > > [ 2.741206] scpi_protocol scpi: incorrect or no SCP firmware found > > [ 2.747586] scpi_protocol: probe of scpi failed with error -110 > > > > Thus this is the "waiting for a dependency which will never appear" case, > > for which I assume the warning is intentional, > > Is that the case ? > > Previously we used to get the warning: > "amba xx: ignoring dependency for device, assuming no driver" > > Now we have the kernel warning in addition to the above. > > > since the system is essentially broken (i.e. the hardware/firmware doesn't > > actually match what the DT describes). > > > > Not sure if we can term it as "essentially broken". Definitely not 100% > functional but not broken if the situation like on Juno where SCP firmware > is fundamental for all OSPM but not essential for boot and other minimum > set of functionality. > > Either way I am not against the warning, just wanted to get certain things > clarified myself. How this warning related to the patch in the subject? Does revert of the patch gives you no warning? (I will be very surprised). -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko