On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 8:02 PM Saravana Kannan [off-list ref] wrote:

On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 7:49 PM John Stultz [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 6:42 PM Bjorn Andersson
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

With all due respect, that's your downstream kernel, the upstream kernel
should not rely on luck, out-of-tree patches or kernel parameters.

I agree that would be preferred. But kernel parameters are often there
for these sorts of cases where we can't always do the right thing.  As
for out-of-tree patches, broken things don't get fixed until
out-of-tree patches are developed and upstreamed, and I know Saravana
is doing exactly that, and I hope his fw_devlink work helps fix it so
the module loading is not just a matter of luck.

Btw, the only downstream fw_devlink change is setting itto =on (vs
=permissive in upstream).

I thought there was the clk_sync_state stuff as well?

quoted

Also I think Thierry's comments in the other thread today are also
good ideas for ways to better handle the optional dt link handling
(rather than using a timeout).

Could you please give me a lore link to this thread? Just curious.

Sure: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200806135251.GB3351349@ulmo/ (local)

thanks
-john

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel