* 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