From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Samuel Ortiz Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: omap: fix the crash during omap ehci or ohci driver initialization Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 19:53:59 +0200 Message-ID: <20110621175359.GA22420@sortiz-mobl> References: <1307367739-20110-1-git-send-email-keshava_mgowda@ti.com> <20110620132626.GJ22420@sortiz-mobl> <20110620132851.GJ14262@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> <20110620145941.GQ22420@sortiz-mobl> <87liww6tva.fsf@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:42283 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757082Ab1FURxx (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Jun 2011 13:53:53 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87liww6tva.fsf@ti.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Kevin Hilman Cc: Felipe Balbi , Keshava Munegowda , linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, gadiyar@ti.com, parthab@india.ti.com Hi Kevin, On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 03:06:01PM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote: > Samuel Ortiz writes: > > > Hi Felipe, > > > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 04:28:52PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 03:26:26PM +0200, Samuel Ortiz wrote: > >> > On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 07:12:19PM +0530, Keshava Munegowda wrote: > >> > > From: Keshava Munegowda > >> > > > >> > > Oops are produced during initialization of ehci and ohci > >> > > drivers. This is because the run time pm apis are used by > >> > > the driver but the corresponding hwmod structures and > >> > > initialization is not merged. > >> > You mean they're currently checked in a different tree ? Is that a > >> > public one? > >> > >> it was supposed to go via linux-omap tree but the patches got lost in > >> the limbo :-( > > Then shouldn't those patches be the ones to be sent to Linus as a fix for 3.0 ? > > If they were ready, maybe. But those patches still need important work > (and review) and are not "fix" material but need to wait until the next > merge window. Fair enough. > Basically, the original patch should not have been submitted to mainline > until the runtime PM support was ready, so the correct short term fix is > to simply revert. > > Also, to echo the question from Dima Zavin: > > Why isn't this just a simple revert of the original patch? I did a revert in my tree. Cheers, Samuel. -- Intel Open Source Technology Centre http://oss.intel.com/