On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 3:37 PM Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 14/12/2022 15:02, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 2:18 PM Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> This series fixes some of the fallout after the thermal changes that > >> just landed in linux-next. > >> > >> Lockdep reported a lock inversion in one of the Qualcomm drivers and a > >> closer review revealed that the changes had also broken the sysfs > >> interface for at least three drivers. > >> > >> Note that a simple revert of the offending patches was not an option as > >> some of the infrastructure that the old implementation relied on has > >> also been removed. > > > > I've dropped that material from my linux-next branch and Daniel, > > please also remove it from your branch that is pulled by linux-next so > > that it doesn't show up in there until 6.2-rc1 is out. > > > > It clearly is not ready for merging in its current form. > > I rebased a linux-next branch without the generic trip points rework. Thanks! > It can be inverted with the other changes without conflicts. Sounds good. > I've pushed the branch in case you want to have a look. If you think it > is acceptable in this form, I can send a tagged PR for 6.2-rc1 again. It looks OK, so please send a PR. > > It is still present in my bleeding-edge branch, though, so please > > apply the patches from Johan on top of it and send a new PR to me, so > > I can add it back to my linux-next branch once 6.2-rc1 appears. > > > > It would be good to check the code again too for any more similar fallout. > > I've been through already, the exynos fix is not necessary. But anyway, > I agree we should keep these changes for the next release, it is better. Awesome, thanks!
