* Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx> [220813 00:30]:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 2:47 AM Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > * Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx> [220810 05:54]:
> > > The driver core now:
> > > - Has the parent device of a supplier pick up the consumers if the
> > > supplier never has a device created for it.
> > > - Ignores a supplier if the supplier has no parent device and will never
> > > be probed by a driver
> > >
> > > And already prevents creating a device link with the consumer as a
> > > supplier of a parent.
> > >
> > > So, we no longer need to find the "compatible" node of the supplier or
> > > do any other checks in of_link_to_phandle(). We simply need to make sure
> > > that the supplier is available in DT.
> >
> > This patch fixes booting for me, so it should be applied as a fix and
> > tagged with:
> >
> > Fixes: 5a46079a9645 ("PM: domains: Delete usage of driver_deferred_probe_check_state()")
> >
> > If there are dependencies to the other patches in this series, it might
> > make sense to revert commit 5a46079a9645 instead.
>
> Yes, there are dependencies on the rest of the patches in this series.
> For linux-next, I think we should pick up this series once we get more
> Tested-bys.
>
> So if 5a46079a9645 is causing any regression in stable branches, we
> should pick up the revert series [1] instead of this series we are
> replying to.
Agreed we should apply the reverts in [1] for v6.0-rc series. At least
several generations of the TI 32-bit ARM SoCs are failing to boot
otherwise.
Regards,
Tony
