On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 8:02 PM Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 7:49 PM John Stultz <john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 6:42 PM Bjorn Andersson > > <bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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? > > 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/ thanks -john
