On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:13:21AM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 07:40:25PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote: > > On 2020-03-27 5:56 pm, Naresh Kamboju wrote: > > > The kernel warning noticed on arm64 juno-r2 device running linux > > > next-20200326 and next-20200327 > > > > I suspect this is the correct expected behaviour manifesting. If you're > > using the upstream juno-r2.dts, the power domain being waited for here is > > provided by SCPI, however unless you're using an SCP firmware from at least > > 3 years ago you won't actually have SCPI since they switched it to the newer > > SCMI protocol, which is not yet supported upstream for Juno. See what > > happened earlier in the log: > > > > [ 2.741206] scpi_protocol scpi: incorrect or no SCP firmware found > > [ 2.747586] scpi_protocol: probe of scpi failed with error -110 > > > > Thus this is the "waiting for a dependency which will never appear" case, > > for which I assume the warning is intentional, > > Is that the case ? > > Previously we used to get the warning: > "amba xx: ignoring dependency for device, assuming no driver" > > Now we have the kernel warning in addition to the above. > > > since the system is essentially broken (i.e. the hardware/firmware doesn't > > actually match what the DT describes). > > > > Not sure if we can term it as "essentially broken". Definitely not 100% > functional but not broken if the situation like on Juno where SCP firmware > is fundamental for all OSPM but not essential for boot and other minimum > set of functionality. > > Either way I am not against the warning, just wanted to get certain things > clarified myself. How this warning related to the patch in the subject? Does revert of the patch gives you no warning? (I will be very surprised). -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
