On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 12:12 AM Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > * Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> [220701 16:00]: > > Also, looks like both with the initcall change for prm, and the patch > > below, there seems to be also another problem where my test devices no > > longer properly idle somehow compared to reverting the your two patches > > in next. > > Sorry looks like was a wrong conclusion. While trying to track down this > issue, I cannot reproduce it. So I don't see issues idling with either > the initcall change or your test patch. > > Not sure what caused my earlier tests to fail though. Maybe a config > change to enable more debugging, or possibly some kind of warm reset vs > cold reset type issue. Thanks for getting back to me about the false alarm. OK, so it looks like my patch to drivers/of/property.c fixed the issue for you. In that case, let me test that a bit more thoroughly on my end to make sure it's not breaking any existing functionality. And if it's not breaking, I'll land that in the kernel eventually. Might be a bit too late for 5.19. I'm considering temporarily reverting my series depending on how the rest of the issues from my series go. -Saravana