On Thu, 2017-02-02 at 12:33 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, February 02, 2017 11:35:05 AM Bastien Nocera wrote: > > On Wed, 2017-02-01 at 15:57 -0800, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote: > > > On Thu, 2017-02-02 at 00:38 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > + Srinivas > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 02:37:43 PM Bastien Nocera wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hey Rafael, > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2017-01-27 at 00:07 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Bastien Nocera <hadess@had > > > > > > ess. > > > > > > ne > > > > > > t> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2017-01-20 at 16:52 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > TLDR: > > > > > > > > # first bad commit: > > > > > > > > [50ba22479c324c0d9dc8134d519dcba92d83a8a7] > > > > > > > > Merge > > > > > > > > back earlier ACPI PM material for v4.3. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hid-sensor-hub devices only start sending events > > > > > > > > through > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > IIO > > > > > > > > trigger after a suspend/resume cycle. > > > > > > > > > > Srinivas, does it sound like anything familiar to you? > > > > > > I guess this is related to > > > https://github.com/hadess/iio-sensor-proxy/issues/82 > > > > > > There is some race between user space and iio. So the driver > > > powerup > > > never gets called back to power a hub during system boot. So the > > > workaround was to add to systemd unit file for iio-sensor-proxy > > > [Unit] > > > After=multi-user.target > > > > > > Something changed timings in the kernel, which triggered this > > > issue. > > > > I don't think it's simply "timings", or at least it's a big enough > > window of opportunity that I can reproduce the bug 100% of the time > > when not adding timeouts to iio-sensor-proxy's timeout. > > > > Putting the machine on suspend and resuming it also fixes the > > problem > > (for a machine I've been testing that can be suspended, it's not an > > option for all of them). > > > > > I never got chance to root cause this. > > > > Well, at least the root cause is limited to a single commit, shame > > it's > > a merge one. > > In fact this is a merge that doesn't change any code by itself (I > thought it > did, but that was not correct), so if that had been more than > timings, you'd > have seen breakage on at least one of the merged branches. > > Moreover, it merges the commits under 3431e490b503 back on top of > material > that went into 4.2, so if you only see the problem in 4.3 and later, > this has to > be the 3431e490b503 branch. > > Can you double check 3431e490b503 alone, please? I don't understand what you're asking of me. I'm not a git master, and I've never had to deal with merge commits. Did you want me to run "git reset --hard 3431e490b503" and test the resulting kernel? I'm pretty sure that's equivalent what my 3 runs of bisection have done, and it failed. Cheers -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
