Am Thu, 13 Mar 2025 20:42:23 +0000 schrieb "Sverdlin, Alexander" <alexander.sverdlin@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > Hi Andreas! > > On Thu, 2025-03-13 at 20:21 +0100, Andreas Kemnade wrote: > > > This reverts commit 4700a00755fb5a4bb5109128297d6fd2d1272ee6. > > > > > > It brakes target-module@2b300050 ("ti,sysc-omap2") probe on AM62x in a case > > > when minimally-configured system tries to network-boot: > > > > > brakes or breaks? To unterstand the severity of the issue... > > Thanks for the correction, it should have been "breaks"... > > > > [ 6.888776] probe of 2b300050.target-module returned 517 after 258 usecs > > > [ 17.129637] probe of 2b300050.target-module returned 517 after 708 usecs > > > [ 17.137397] platform 2b300050.target-module: deferred probe pending: (reason unknown) > > > [ 26.878471] Waiting up to 100 more seconds for network. > > > > > > Arbitrary 10 deferrals is really not a solution to any problem. > > > > So there is a point where no more probe of anything pending are > > triggered and therefore things are not probed? > > Because there is a point indeed (if we configure quite minimal set of drivers just > enough to mount NFS) when deferred probes are not triggered any longer. > > > > Stable mmc enumeration can be achiever by filling /aliases node properly > > > (4700a00755fb commit's rationale). > > > > > yes, it does not look like a clean solution. And we have the > > proper aliases node in many places. What I am a bit wondering about is > > what kind of sleeping dogs we are going to wake up by this revert. So I > > think this should be tested a lot esp. about possible pm issues. > > > > Not every dependency in the sysc probe area is properly defined. > > But the patch I propose to revert is really not a solution for missing > dependencies on syscons. I'm fine with not propagating this to stable, > but reverting in master should give enough time for older SoCs to test, > WDYT? > I am not against your revert proposal and not against propagating it to stable, I would just like to see some Tested-Bys before it gets applied to anything. If anything nasty pops up, it should be solved in a cleaner way then with the offending patch. Regards, Andreas