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=-3.9 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 93D02C43331 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 07:29:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65BF920748 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 07:29:15 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1585639755; bh=K+kSUFn5QmpohIurApP9XIGsLdwd699dH3yuXItWuiA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=04DQLPDu0RMobEhrAZ/yr0+90+0ZEUFNhQesifrvRs9EOjKMGIYlVgFCx15nhXLnR gcwDmNOy13bB5aGPHGhfeUXfvHX4Tmp9uXnN6RhtVZZaUhmgRjDN4+ALZn7feiRCk8 KqvOzvBeTzLRZ01pVB1ookQM/G+MyRP/awqd1AKI= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730006AbgCaH3O (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Mar 2020 03:29:14 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:52984 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726001AbgCaH3O (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Mar 2020 03:29:14 -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 BA8642072A; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 07:29:12 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1585639753; bh=K+kSUFn5QmpohIurApP9XIGsLdwd699dH3yuXItWuiA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=kCVMfrAGdSlyYD5ebr6vfmZ8Vt9m2/NynRiHqxBJSt9kY644r95zbSEGDh6TgLRGg 4oRC2zd2IlwpPhl40SrLW4dfdNNPzqvDgNw/lWm7ZSz3OpgdrOPD8Xv/9HxvtZMeJF r7+gUops7UKDwrusSf5oM2gnzf44wDMddodBMvhM= Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 09:29:10 +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: <20200331072910.GC854501@kroah.com> References: <20200331022832.209618-1-saravanak@google.com> <781eefdc-c926-7566-5305-bb9633e6fac0@samsung.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 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. greg k-h