Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] i2c: tegra: Better handle case where CPU0 is busy for a long time

[Wolfram Sang <wsa-z923LK4zBo2bacvFa/9K2g@public.gmane.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1218 bytes --]


> Yes, that bug should be fixed anyway. But that doesn't justify breaking
> suspend/resume completely, which *is* a regression.
> 
> Look, I'm not saying that we should drop this patch altogether. All I'm
> saying is that we should postpone it so that we can: a) get suspend and
> resume working again (and by doing so make sure no other suspend/resume
> regressions silently creep in, because that always seems to happen when
> you're not looking) and b) fix any preexisting issues without possibly
> scrambling the result with this perhaps unrelated fix.
> 
> So, again, I think the safest road forward is to back this one out for
> now, fix whatever this other bug is and once suspend/resume is working
> properly again we can revisit this patch based on a known-good baseline.

I am with you here. I want to add that the proper fix should be
developed without thinking too much about stable in the first place.
*When* we have a proper working fix, then we can think about making it
"more" suitable for backporting. Yet, it may also be a result that older
kernels need a different solution. Or have no solution at all, in case
they can't do atomic_transfers and this is needed.

D'accord?


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]