On 2/12/26 15:38, Marek Vasut wrote: > On 2/12/26 10:00 AM, Matt Coster wrote: >> On 11/02/2026 19:17, Marek Vasut wrote: >>> On 1/23/26 2:50 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >>>> On Fri, 23 Jan 2026 at 14:36, Matt Coster <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> On 22/01/2026 16:08, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >>>>>> Call the dev_pm_domain_attach_list() and dev_pm_domain_detach_list() >>>>>> helpers instead of open-coding multi PM Domain handling. >>>>>> >>>>>> This changes behavior slightly: >>>>>> - The new handling is also applied in case of a single PM Domain, >>>>>> - PM Domains are now referred to by index instead of by name, but >>>>>> "make dtbs_check" enforces the actual naming and ordering >>>>>> anyway, >>>>>> - There are no longer device links created between virtual domain >>>>>> devices, only between virtual devices and the parent device. >>>>> >>>>> We still need this guarantee, both at start and end of day. In the >>>>> current implementation dev_pm_domain_attach_list() iterates forwards, >>>>> but so does dev_pm_domain_detach_list(). Even if we changed that, I'd >>>>> prefer not to rely on the implementation details when we can >>>>> declare the >>>>> dependencies explicitly. >>>> >>>> Note that on R-Car, the PM Domains are nested (see e.g. >>>> r8a7795_areas[]), >>>> so they are always (un)powered in the correct order. But that may not >>>> be the case in the integration on other SoCs. >>>> >>>>> We had/have a patch (attached) kicking around internally to use the >>>>> *_list() functions but keep the inter-domain links in place; it got >>>>> held >>>>> up by discussions as to whether we actually need those dependencies >>>>> for >>>>> the hardware to behave correctly. Your patch spurred me to run around >>>>> the office and nag people a bit, and it seems we really do need to >>>>> care >>>>> about the ordering. >>>> >>>> OK. >>>> >>>>> Can you add the links back in for a V2 or I can properly send the >>>>> attached patch instead, I don't mind either way. >>>> >>>> Please move forward with your patch, you are the expert. >>>> I prefer not to be blamed for any breakage ;-) >>> >>> Has there been any progress on fixing this kernel crash ? >>> >>> There are already two proposed solutions, but no fix is upstream. >> >> Yes and no. Our patch to use dev_pm_domain_attach_list() has landed in >> drm-misc-next as commit e19cc5ab347e3 ("drm/imagination: Use>> >> dev_pm_domain_attach_list()"), but this does not fix the underlying >> issue of missing synchronization in the PM core[1] is still unresolved >> as far as I'm aware. > > OK, but the pvr driver can currently easily crash the kernel on boot if > firmware is missing, so that should be fixed soon, right ?
Well, drm-misc-next afaik means that the above mentioned fix would only be merged in 7.1, which is ~4 months away, which is not really "soon" I'd say. Or did I misjudge this? > I added the regressions list onto CC, because this seems like a problem > worth tracking. Noticed that and wondered what change caused the regression. Did not find a answer in a quick search on lore[1]. Because if it's a regression, we maybe should just revert the culprit for now according to Linus: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wi86aosxs66-yi54+mpqjpu0upxb8zafg+lsmyjmcu...@mail.gmail.com/ Ciao, Thorsten [1] I guess this was the initial report from Geert? https://lore.kernel.org/all/camuhmdwapt40hv3c+csbqfow05awcv1a6v_nijygoyi0i9_...@mail.gmail.com/
