2012/8/28 Laxman Dewangan :
> I tried to reproduce the lockup issue with the following change but not
> seeing any lockup issue.
Did you enable CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING?
> Also reviewing the change, I am not seeing any call trace where the
> recursive locking happening.
There's probably no actual
On Saturday 25 August 2012 05:10 AM, Rabin Vincent wrote:
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 11:22:05PM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
I tried to reproduce the issue but could not able to do this.
Can you please send me your board/dt files where you are porviding
platform data for regulator?
This will help
On Saturday 25 August 2012 05:10 AM, Rabin Vincent wrote:
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 11:22:05PM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
I tried to reproduce the issue but could not able to do this.
Can you please send me your board/dt files where you are porviding
platform data for regulator?
This will help
2012/8/28 Laxman Dewangan ldewan...@nvidia.com:
I tried to reproduce the lockup issue with the following change but not
seeing any lockup issue.
Did you enable CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING?
Also reviewing the change, I am not seeing any call trace where the
recursive locking happening.
There's
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 11:22:05PM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
> I tried to reproduce the issue but could not able to do this.
> Can you please send me your board/dt files where you are porviding
> platform data for regulator?
> This will help me to reproduce the issue.
Here's a dts patch:
On Thursday 23 August 2012 08:13 PM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
On Thursday 23 August 2012 08:23 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 03:15:12PM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
Hi Rabin,
Is it resolved the issue you mentioned?
He replied to your mail pointing out that it generated a
On Thursday 23 August 2012 08:13 PM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
On Thursday 23 August 2012 08:23 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 03:15:12PM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
Hi Rabin,
Is it resolved the issue you mentioned?
He replied to your mail pointing out that it generated a
On Thursday 23 August 2012 08:13 PM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
On Thursday 23 August 2012 08:23 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 03:15:12PM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
Hi Rabin,
Is it resolved the issue you mentioned?
He replied to your mail pointing out that it generated a
On Thursday 23 August 2012 08:13 PM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
On Thursday 23 August 2012 08:23 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 03:15:12PM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
Hi Rabin,
Is it resolved the issue you mentioned?
He replied to your mail pointing out that it generated a
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 11:22:05PM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
I tried to reproduce the issue but could not able to do this.
Can you please send me your board/dt files where you are porviding
platform data for regulator?
This will help me to reproduce the issue.
Here's a dts patch:
diff
On Thursday 23 August 2012 08:23 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 03:15:12PM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
Hi Rabin,
Is it resolved the issue you mentioned?
He replied to your mail pointing out that it generated a lockdep issue.
Thanks Mark for letting me know. The mail transfer
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 03:15:12PM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
> Hi Rabin,
> Is it resolved the issue you mentioned?
He replied to your mail pointing out that it generated a lockdep issue.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 03:15:12PM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
Hi Rabin,
Is it resolved the issue you mentioned?
He replied to your mail pointing out that it generated a lockdep issue.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to
On Thursday 23 August 2012 08:23 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 03:15:12PM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
Hi Rabin,
Is it resolved the issue you mentioned?
He replied to your mail pointing out that it generated a lockdep issue.
Thanks Mark for letting me know. The mail transfer
Hi Rabin,
Is it resolved the issue you mentioned?
Thanks,
Laxman
On Tuesday 14 August 2012 03:37 PM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
If supply regulator is enabled because of boot-on (not always-on)
then disable regulator need to be call if regulator have some
user or full constraint has been enabled.
Hi Rabin,
Is it resolved the issue you mentioned?
Thanks,
Laxman
On Tuesday 14 August 2012 03:37 PM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
If supply regulator is enabled because of boot-on (not always-on)
then disable regulator need to be call if regulator have some
user or full constraint has been enabled.
2012/8/14 Laxman Dewangan :
> If supply regulator is enabled because of boot-on (not always-on)
> then disable regulator need to be call if regulator have some
> user or full constraint has been enabled.
> This will make sure that reference count of supply regulator
> is in sync with child
If supply regulator is enabled because of boot-on (not always-on)
then disable regulator need to be call if regulator have some
user or full constraint has been enabled.
This will make sure that reference count of supply regulator
is in sync with child regulator's state.
Signed-off-by: Laxman
If supply regulator is enabled because of boot-on (not always-on)
then disable regulator need to be call if regulator have some
user or full constraint has been enabled.
This will make sure that reference count of supply regulator
is in sync with child regulator's state.
Signed-off-by: Laxman
2012/8/14 Laxman Dewangan ldewan...@nvidia.com:
If supply regulator is enabled because of boot-on (not always-on)
then disable regulator need to be call if regulator have some
user or full constraint has been enabled.
This will make sure that reference count of supply regulator
is in sync
20 matches
Mail list logo
