On Thu, 26 Mar 2015, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: > On Thursday 19 March 2015 10:19 PM, Paul Walmsley wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Mar 2015, grygorii.stras...@linaro.org wrote: > >> On 03/19/2015 05:45 PM, Paul Walmsley wrote: > >>> On Thu, 19 Mar 2015, grygorii.stras...@linaro.org wrote: > >>>> On 03/19/2015 04:55 PM, Paul Walmsley wrote: > >>>>> On Wed, 18 Mar 2015, grygorii.stras...@linaro.org wrote: > >>>>>> On 03/18/2015 06:57 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > >>>>>>> * Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.stras...@ti.com> [150318 09:37]: > >>>>>>>> As I can see Patch 1 from this series was merged in 4.0-rc4, > >>>>>>>> but this patch wasn't. As result, I can see below warning all the > >>>>>>>> time > >>>>>>>> during boot now: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> [ 0.594591] platform 4a094000.pciephy: Cannot lookup hwmod > >>>>>>>> 'pcie1-phy' > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> OK. Is this needed as a fix for the v4.0-rc series, or can this wait > >>>>>>> for v4.1? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I think, Yes. These two patches should go all together, because they > >>>>>> are > >>>>>> interrelated. > >>>>> > >>>>> Does the warning result in a functional problem, or is it just a > >>>>> warning? > >>>> > >>>> PCE1 PHY device is not registered any more. > >>> > >>> How does the second patch fix that? > >> > >> I've re-checked it - sorry for disinfo. > >> > >> PHY devices are created, but omap_device_fail_pm_domain is assigned to > >> them. > >> As result Runtime PM is not working any more. > >> > >> > >> [ 0.592501] platform 4a094000.pciephy: Cannot lookup hwmod 'pcie1-phy' > >> [ 0.597510] pinctrl-single 4a003400.pinmux: 281 pins at pa fc003400 > >> size 1124 > >> [ 0.602794] ti-pipe3 4a094000.pciephy: _od_fail_runtime_resume: FIXME: > >> missing hwmod/omap_dev info > >> > >> When ti,hwmods is not present PCI PHY will be added as regular Platform > >> device > >> and Runtime PM will work again. > > > > OK then it should definitely go up as a fix. > > > > Kishon, for future references, those two patches should have been combined > > into a single patch. As it stands now, if someone bisects down to that > > first patch, it sounds like PM will be at least partially broken. Too bad > > I don't have a DRA7xx board where things like this can be tested before > > being sent upstream. > > huh.. was under the assumption that patches for device tree and the kernel > patches should be separate.
Generally that's true, _unless_ separating them will break something between the two patches. That appears to be the case here. The important thing is to make sure every single commit builds and functions at least as well as the previous commit - i.e., there should be no regressions. - Paul -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
