Messages in this thread | | | From | Doug Anderson <> | Date | Thu, 18 Aug 2022 16:30:47 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] Bring back driver_deferred_probe_check_state() for now |
| |
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 6:31 AM Luca Weiss <luca.weiss@fairphone.com> wrote: > > Hi Saravana, > > On Tue Aug 16, 2022 at 1:36 AM CEST, Saravana Kannan wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 9:57 AM Luca Weiss <luca.weiss@fairphone.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon Aug 15, 2022 at 1:01 PM CEST, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > > * Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com> [700101 02:00]: > > > > > More fixes/changes are needed before driver_deferred_probe_check_state() > > > > > can be deleted. So, bring it back for now. > > > > > > > > > > Greg, > > > > > > > > > > Can we get this into 5.19? If not, it might not be worth picking up this > > > > > series. I could just do the other/more fixes in time for 5.20. > > > > > > > > Yes please pick this as fixes for v6.0-rc series, it fixes booting for > > > > me. I've replied with fixes tags for the two patches that were causing > > > > regressions for me. > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > for me Patch 1+3 fix display probe on Qualcomm SM6350 (although display > > > for this SoC isn't upstream yet, there are lots of other SoCs with very > > > similar setup). > > > > > > Probe for DPU silently fails, with CONFIG_DEBUG_DRIVER=y we get this: > > > > > > msm-mdss ae00000.mdss: __genpd_dev_pm_attach() failed to find PM domain: -2 > > > > > > While I'm not familiar with the specifics of fw_devlink, the dtsi has > > > power-domains = <&dispcc MDSS_GDSC> for this node but it doesn't pick > > > that up for some reason. > > > > > > We can also see that a bit later dispcc finally probes. > > > > Luca, > > > > Can you test with this series instead and see if it fixes this issue? > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220810060040.321697-1-saravanak@google.com/ > > > > Unfortunately it doesn't seem to work with the 9 patches
I also tried with the 9 patches, plus an extra fix that Saravana provided. They didn't fix my use case either. Do we want to land the reverts as a stopgap so that people aren't broken?
For reference, the device tree for the device I'm testing on is `arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-lazor-r3-lte.dts`. The device that's not probing is the bridge chip, AKA 2-002d. Presumably something about the bridge chip cycles is confusing things since the remote endpoint that sn65dsi86 needs is actually a child of sn65dsi86 (the panel).
-Doug
| |