From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932192AbbDHQXj (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Apr 2015 12:23:39 -0400 Received: from mail-qk0-f170.google.com ([209.85.220.170]:34899 "EHLO mail-qk0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753841AbbDHQXi (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Apr 2015 12:23:38 -0400 Message-ID: <55255608.1080303@hurleysoftware.com> Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2015 12:23:36 -0400 From: Peter Hurley User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: balbi@ti.com CC: Maxime Ripard , Vinod Koul , Laurent Pinchart , Linux kernel Subject: Re: [4.0-rc+] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1 at ./drivers/dma/dmaengine.c:863 dma_async_device_register+0xe0/0x540() References: <54F87075.5020105@hurleysoftware.com> <20150305161236.GG2613@intel.com> <55254EFD.10700@hurleysoftware.com> <20150408155945.GG26727@lukather> <55255232.40700@hurleysoftware.com> <20150408160955.GD1738@saruman.tx.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <20150408160955.GD1738@saruman.tx.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 04/08/2015 12:09 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote: > On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 12:07:14PM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote: >> On 04/08/2015 11:59 AM, Maxime Ripard wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 11:53:33AM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote: >>>> On 03/05/2015 11:12 AM, Vinod Koul wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 10:04:21AM -0500, Peter Hurley wrote: >>>>>>> First boot of 4.0-rc+ gave me [1] on a Beaglebone Black due to >>>>>>> >>>>> The warning is intentional to get driver fixed and give the right behaviour >>>>> >>>>> Felipe had sent a patch for this but that one needs an update >>>> >>>> Vinod, >>>> >>>> Felipe's patch never made it to mainline, and this warning is >>>> still happening on 4.0-rc7 so please revert for 4.0-final. >>> >>> That patch isn't introducing any regression. I fail to see how that >>> justifies a revert so late in the release cycle. >> >> Arguably it never should have been introduced in the first place, and >> this was at least known since Mar 5 (and likely earlier); arguing that >> it's late in the cycle is a bit disingenuous. > > In Vinod's defense, he asked for changes in my patch which I didn't have > time to implement (as of yet). Have been rather busy lately with a bunch > of other things, I'll try to get to those changes ASAP, just need to > finish up a bisect on another platform. Ok, but Vinod's on vacation, and adding new functionality now definitely seems too late.