From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arend van Spriel Subject: Re: [PATCH] wcn36xx: Close SMD channel on device removal Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 09:27:43 +0200 Message-ID: <6e1cc217-924f-c536-6009-f6a377844d6f@broadcom.com> References: <20170509043637.28179-1-bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> <87h90u3672.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> <20170509230312.GR15143@minitux> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Eugene Krasnikov , Eyal Ilsar , wcn36xx@lists.infradead.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org To: Bjorn Andersson , Kalle Valo Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20170509230312.GR15143@minitux> Content-Language: en-GB Sender: linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 5/10/2017 1:03 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > On Mon 08 May 23:17 PDT 2017, Kalle Valo wrote: > >> Bjorn Andersson writes: >> >>> The SMD channel is not the primary WCNSS channel and must explicitly be >>> closed as the device is removed, or the channel will already by open on >>> a subsequent probe call in e.g. the case of reloading the kernel module. >>> >>> This issue was introduced because I simplified the underlying SMD >>> implementation while the SMD adaptions of the driver sat on the mailing >>> list, but missed to update these patches. The patch does however only >>> apply back to the transition to rpmsg, hence the limited Fixes. >>> >>> Fixes: 5052de8deff5 ("soc: qcom: smd: Transition client drivers from smd to rpmsg") >>> Reported-by: Eyal Ilsar >>> Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson >> >> As this is a regression I'll queue this to 4.12. >> > > Thanks. > >> But if this is an older bug (didn't quite understand your description >> though) should there be a separate patch for stable releases? >> > > AFAICT this never worked, as it seems I did the rework in SMD while we > tried to figure out the dependency issues we had with moving to SMD. So > v4.9 through v4.11 has SMD support - with this bug. > > How do I proceed, do you want me to write up a fix for stable@? Do I > send that out as an ordinary patch? If the patch applies cleanly on branches linux-4.9.y through linux-4.11.y in the stable repository you can go for '--- Option 1 ---' as described in /Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt. Regards, Arend