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=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED 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 2DA94C83000 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 15:52:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07685206C0 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 15:52:26 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1588089146; bh=FonZhAd2nSb7LZznv2tDxTHOgq8CE0zbDHFkB+PUCfk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=KrncpzGy6YKh2/j6FNxK/wudxZqt/CPZz8xBht6On6un0PzEY+eHGTmhJP0OBkQnW Urm+qmtSn4tWFiXqoNP9GUBZCRtx/Nwwgs0DLl5ARMrEr8FfJeVB7M+8PAVcZUWCR5 ZW0cVK60+PFRfSI3nDM1GgcmYsOJs6mxxp06thL0= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728161AbgD1PwZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Apr 2020 11:52:25 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:52000 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727920AbgD1PwY (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Apr 2020 11:52:24 -0400 Received: from localhost (83-86-89-107.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl [83.86.89.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A8738205C9; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 15:52:23 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1588089144; bh=FonZhAd2nSb7LZznv2tDxTHOgq8CE0zbDHFkB+PUCfk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=jzWr8KxeGp2asEx+F0kxIMPvQdqUnh9aRN3j2eX9rHqvHiXKyYtE/6Szw6mXToE20 p7MEdcYXt1xJkK1isFf/JJMWkCop1Un9xv7O0kM6p3O+CM7NUBW1hTKxXyb1ZjJeiG yj3Q2aR9k7afQGdc4It3xaPCYu7WJxddfQFJLb/w= Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2020 17:52:22 +0200 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Saravana Kannan Cc: Marek Szyprowski , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Android Kernel Team , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] driver core: Fix handling of fw_devlink=permissive Message-ID: <20200428155222.GA1584194@kroah.com> References: <20200331022832.209618-1-saravanak@google.com> <781eefdc-c926-7566-5305-bb9633e6fac0@samsung.com> <20200331072910.GC854501@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 11:25:47AM -0700, Saravana Kannan wrote: > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 12:29 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman > wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:18:01PM -0700, Saravana Kannan wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:43 PM Marek Szyprowski > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > On 2020-03-31 04:28, Saravana Kannan wrote: > > > > > When commit 8375e74f2bca ("driver core: Add fw_devlink kernel > > > > > commandline option") added fw_devlink, it didn't implement "permissive" > > > > > mode correctly. > > > > > > > > > > That commit got the device links flags correct to make sure unprobed > > > > > suppliers don't block the probing of a consumer. However, if a consumer > > > > > is waiting for mandatory suppliers to register, that could still block a > > > > > consumer from probing. > > > > > > > > > > This commit fixes that by making sure in permissive mode, all suppliers > > > > > to a consumer are treated as a optional suppliers. So, even if a > > > > > consumer is waiting for suppliers to register and link itself (using the > > > > > DL_FLAG_SYNC_STATE_ONLY flag) to the supplier, the consumer is never > > > > > blocked from probing. > > > > > > > > > > Fixes: 8375e74f2bca ("driver core: Add fw_devlink kernel commandline option") > > > > > Reported-by: Marek Szyprowski > > > > > Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan > > > > > --- > > > > > Hi Marek, > > > > > > > > > > If you pull in this patch and then add back in my patch that created the > > > > > boot problem for you, can you see if that fixes the boot issue for you? > > > > > > > > Indeed, this fixes booting on my Raspberry Pi3/4 boards with linux > > > > next-20200327. Thanks! :) > > > > > > Hi Marek, > > > > > > Thanks for testing, but I'm not able to find the tag next-20200327. I > > > can only find next-20200326 and next-20200330. I was just trying to > > > make sure that next-20200327 doesn't have the revert Greg did. I'm > > > guessing you meant next-20200326? > > > > > > > Tested-by: Marek Szyprowski > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > Greg, > > > > > > Can you pull in my fix and then revert the revert? > > > > After 5.7-rc1 is out I will, thanks. > > Hi Greg, > > Just to clarify, this patch is a bug fix and I think this patch should > go into all the stable branches that support fw_devlink. > > The only risky change that you needed to wait on for 5.7-rc1 is the > patch [1] that sets fw_devlink=permissive by default. Well, a revert > of the revert of [1]. > > [1] - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200321210305.28937-1-saravanak@google.com/ I don't understand, what kernels should this go back to? Your "Fixes:" line just shows for a 5.7-rc1 patch, nothing older. thanks, greg k-h