From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.andi.de1.cc (mail.andi.de1.cc [178.238.236.174]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59F8E1F12F9; Thu, 13 Mar 2025 19:21:40 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=178.238.236.174 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1741893701; cv=none; b=Lf5yKcSx9+aHgevz0OKDOv7g1K6HTkpo3/ZQNLHjZ5a0D42l3uUikl+cdQH7EeHRRb2sjyGhAQvm9qviu+kKczDNjH9pnFaE5UL9bpX3AQVyMGIwbwBwOZvXjxpbQ7sdnfNW+6xDVg4Rqm9NoJbjEoriAIfNQ+cy9ChfkdbgLNM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1741893701; c=relaxed/simple; bh=L0AvhxZ12qI07UjqeOh7oV2Gu8FLAZOgK1oLVO31CRI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=UWjWMygQ5y6ttRGjRuhmiy4r6VxrQzPdJZXfwehkQZ1wy5bhWcU3pan5Vv1PgHgfOpZ5m6XEvilwivuIlFZ+APBtFnOWuuznwk0v/Jb7Y4EfevCILVNqUX28SoRRyveBzrBdC0pVGLnQJTZVBLg7oPUuM/nI5E/5yNa6ttFRnpI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=kemnade.info; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kemnade.info; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kemnade.info header.i=@kemnade.info header.b=yv+MFX5+; arc=none smtp.client-ip=178.238.236.174 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=kemnade.info Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kemnade.info Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kemnade.info header.i=@kemnade.info header.b="yv+MFX5+" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kemnade.info; s=20220719; h=References:In-Reply-To:Cc:From:Sender:Reply-To: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID; bh=CgU6TUOIPlDMD+REA5JKB0zRv3EEjrSx/AftiArfusE=; b=yv+MFX5+sCF3LhBRXp3kWnvmOb MqNT+NXLVk754rUoHAl95u7xiaXBC+clKlyfoIgHvQAXa0yiegFnpbK0ZzLvk1fctJ/1h/ULiuxiG +ll83Ad/TV9oLExhxYCI8j8i2Rw1hzGbEaFOZh39mr5C+PlYp2Xck62WPzlZwVkB7Y3cX1E4DNgqu QCj1bHHIDVNjEQBtr+JD0yy8QvhiS9sLRdOzlV+NFGksojV5waRhK77DVAovEuEi/g3FhpYN7TTLr 3X+pD5j5Ungbg0MoVWt/nPldD4dU9gXHS7FQicnys7aNaVxR60XAtvRS1w1Y3t89YrKk1fw/ufSoZ utS4OT5g==; Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2025 20:21:29 +0100 From: Andreas Kemnade To: "A. Sverdlin" Cc: Tony Lindgren , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, Aaro Koskinen , Kevin Hilman , Roger Quadros , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "bus: ti-sysc: Probe for l4_wkup and l4_cfg interconnect devices first" Message-ID: <20250313202129.0dcfc44e@akair> In-Reply-To: <20250313094708.1003092-1-alexander.sverdlin@siemens.com> References: <20250313094708.1003092-1-alexander.sverdlin@siemens.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.1.1 (GTK 3.24.38; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Alexander, Am Thu, 13 Mar 2025 10:47:06 +0100 schrieb "A. Sverdlin" : > From: Alexander Sverdlin > > This reverts commit 4700a00755fb5a4bb5109128297d6fd2d1272ee6. > > It brakes target-module@2b300050 ("ti,sysc-omap2") probe on AM62x in a case > when minimally-configured system tries to network-boot: > brakes or breaks? To unterstand the severity of the issue... > [ 6.888776] probe of 2b300050.target-module returned 517 after 258 usecs > [ 17.129637] probe of 2b300050.target-module returned 517 after 708 usecs > [ 17.137397] platform 2b300050.target-module: deferred probe pending: (reason unknown) > [ 26.878471] Waiting up to 100 more seconds for network. > > Arbitrary 10 deferrals is really not a solution to any problem. So there is a point where no more probe of anything pending are triggered and therefore things are not probed? > Stable mmc enumeration can be achiever by filling /aliases node properly > (4700a00755fb commit's rationale). > yes, it does not look like a clean solution. And we have the proper aliases node in many places. What I am a bit wondering about is what kind of sleeping dogs we are going to wake up by this revert. So I think this should be tested a lot esp. about possible pm issues. Not every dependency in the sysc probe area is properly defined. Regards, Andreas