On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 at 20:45, Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 10/26/23 20:42, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > > > > > > On 10/25/23 12:44, Robert Marko wrote: > >> IPQ6018 has GDSC-s for each of the USB ports, so lets define them as such > >> and drop the curent code that is de-asserting the USB GDSC-s as part of > >> the GCC probe. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Robert Marko <robimarko@xxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > > Applying patches 1 and 3 without this one breaks usb, no? > Sorry, my hands don't keep up with my brain - that's almost another > speculative execution vulnerability! > > What I meant to say is: > > applying patches 1 and 2 breaks USB > > but > > the solution here would be to apply patch 1 and patch 3, followed > by patch 2 (unless it will make the USB defer, IDK, it's probably > easier to just test than to dive deep into the code) > > with Bjorn taking both subsystems, we can make that work I think Hi, Applying patches 1 and 3 without patch 2 will make USB fail with: # [ 11.351681] dwc3-qcom 8af8800.usb: deferred probe timeout, ignoring dependency [ 11.351729] dwc3-qcom: probe of 8af8800.usb failed with error -110 And yes, applying patches 1 and 2 without patch 3 will also break USB. That is why I sent this as a series. Regards, Robert > > Konrad
