On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 07:30:22PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 06:58:06PM +0300, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 03:35:42PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 03:05:49PM +0300, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote: > > ... > > > > But I think we now have a core fix for this, no need to do this in any > > > individual driver, right? Can you test my tty-linus branch to see if > > > your change is still needed or not? > > > > I was not aware of the alternative approach, at that time Andy > > confirmed the expected behaviour is to have a proper initialization > > of the spinlock in the driver: > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHp75Vcz0a87LSnb6Ubt5_bSF3wUcs21GbP119trXER5KBDxbQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHp75Vf8xJ2yX-11JsTDnRvZQOK+16aePcB1AUzq=5oO-mFCGQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > I have just checked the tty-linus tree and the only related change > > seems to be f743061a85f5 > > ("serial: core: Initialise spin lock before use in uart_configure_port()") > > > > I tested it on top of 5.8.0-rc4 and I confirm it fixes the splat, > > Thank you for the testing! > > > however I'm a bit confused now regarding the recommended approach since > > there is at least one more commit in the tty-linux tree that still > > handles a similar issue in the driver specific code: > > f38278e9b810 ("serial: sh-sci: Initialize spinlock for uart console") > > They now should be reverted. Please send patches for that :) thanks, greg k-h
