On Tue, Sep 02, 2025 at 04:02:27PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 3:50 PM Andy Shevchenko > <andriy.shevche...@intel.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 02, 2025 at 03:29:31PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 3:06 PM Andy Shevchenko > > > <andriy.shevche...@intel.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 02, 2025 at 01:59:10PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
... > > > > Fixes? > > > > > > This has always been like that. > > > > > > > Reported? > > > > > > I mean, technically Mark Brown reported my previous patch failing but > > > I don't think we do this if we're still within the same series just > > > another iteration? > > > > > > > Closes? > > > > > > Ditto. > > > > I meant that this fixes a potential issue disregard to your series, right? > > No, as long as the imx driver keeps putting stuff into the pin > function radix tree directly, this cannot happen. The issue was > triggered by the discrepancy between the number of added selectors and > the hardcoded number of functions (we started at 0 which was not in > the radix tree and crashed before we got to 1). Ah, thanks for the explanation. The problem is that current commit message implies a (potential) but lurking somewhere (regardless IMX case). Can you amend it to make more explicit that there is no bug right now. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
