Received: by 2002:a05:6902:102b:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id x11csp640716ybt; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 07:46:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxJ/cBo/2HzevrJaFJwCaJr9nSbhfdgXSkwHTgRfIl7iX+q6wPVkqFvJyWFIwoSGReSgAVp X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:7686:: with SMTP id o6mr13926369ejm.326.1593010011854; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 07:46:51 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1593010011; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=xdcO/6nj16AYncBPSyQ5L3fRtaOHv5R6hZcf8zBBjZeqsLwiYEbkhKW53QMu5l2t0+ RW8ul8z0R/C8eaSF656dXFPwJwHYyc1lZTW5WlzDZ6cWrhQ+omv523Kl9eIrtcUvIWJf sJejW54bYFcp3dclAuQACDRrnQ2jLnQHeOzuRlrhRG4m0xGf69108akfHT8SicnW8hxk Uzy0eKGtJ836MTgYNwEkyh1Q+GrUIXV9oMuZROC11c0syATk/erSdLiLKEHjJ7rCjomB wyagMtsOz1hG0oOZf0TT59qiEe6hIFisDyMUsVcQUVkUClR80sI5CFrLkBbKuWZv/fNu rrZw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:dkim-signature; bh=V6zGdXUAqtZ8TMJ1p/Ja4LOic56oWXGysX+nGE4qGOk=; b=bg6DCBcQvHPGhImt+iWAFYjW8eTjAp8TfpUGreJZbmG8kUgveLPkYgIYfVmo41aSZV 0ilr28Fon8J2/EeWIwUA+otLWv+cEXFMB1pDFgRdEXYIa+twvx3q0Tsusn1uZTqX2Xl6 GnnY8schiEvthkDlDZq+0WPyqh84J6wJGFdBNqnTPxDKzrwzgP3uRMNJzzTPN6B97lBU bzdG16m7B1R6eD4q317YH0L9CcryTqIvcEIW4fRKU8A8hSWlMtgPkmAFYBfgd6Ntt+cZ NNx7VTK8czrDoTSHBMU6WP5u/kAcOKMueEepSzg2mvkxhjq3GeUYuKt0VOL2PCNZ5PBq o2Vg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@google.com header.s=20161025 header.b=UDwsCRqV; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=REJECT sp=REJECT dis=NONE) header.from=google.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id j26si12461491ejs.623.2020.06.24.07.46.28; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 07:46:51 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@google.com header.s=20161025 header.b=UDwsCRqV; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=REJECT sp=REJECT dis=NONE) header.from=google.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2391240AbgFXOp5 (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 24 Jun 2020 10:45:57 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:52966 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2389253AbgFXOp4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jun 2020 10:45:56 -0400 Received: from mail-ed1-x544.google.com (mail-ed1-x544.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::544]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98B72C0613ED for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 07:45:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ed1-x544.google.com with SMTP id b15so1688707edy.7 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 07:45:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=V6zGdXUAqtZ8TMJ1p/Ja4LOic56oWXGysX+nGE4qGOk=; b=UDwsCRqVx8pfOz08W/2ltgAZty0p1HIWOlxDs9wZvrc42865oOIHY6SxuI2wLxKSK4 oX1qfEtOdm91IM9CbQ5mvylgn9KaJlFQafwX3iRPPyO10cQ/e0DDKvcdVFFjFnPCw6v+ m0aztYbQKOtK/DNy4DXRqaeAzOAMX7wkrVtXSFUUSIXPNuFi3g2Xluz02EDJTGM1PVdo L3mlYBDLQHsEixw6Hwg0iGqWlyeVIwA6L0psHpwzAQuipMKp/9BStuN5A4XoXmbTmg+Y 5p8/tYN4bjKWIt2LuHADfiTGe980AsUeFyyhbeuJ/eM+Y0rb7YzET0ARqw4MzChKo9st gRdg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=V6zGdXUAqtZ8TMJ1p/Ja4LOic56oWXGysX+nGE4qGOk=; b=ZXXRENlhHzEbPVqf35QG/HJ7ObjE5ua7qxJHEKNBE2DmXdRR4n2ya9ktwQKyvWuEDw zyJMTd6oIDprZWawQqRCS6bP2dLnzWyV8wf6QgvhfLfMwXKUaduw5lqCCpKkgpNX6ec7 G6v8pv5R8aG80Ui1FCg8XkJ+blNSLvD3xZDb4rP2U6FuNNbGgTMm5JeLU3GBKcKpgc9o 5eSeYJ36NnOGDGqQLpc2DraSROPlSRzXqHM8Q45IYg7Mgv6xJeIt49sjsyR1kWzJBG4U UzITBG4qyvae1PNELPftG5gEwcBOH8OipI6Ih7rlPA/FWfv/ilRRlfY7TJHmI+NKA54D wYdA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533SrDITS4WuerBEKTL8/L+a5jszyO6+TP9iC8gq0HMPRgqwFTE4 gcBlhUq3v/ZtKbk31MvqDroyTM4u+/XbKJoeY88H1g== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:22f0:: with SMTP id dn16mr21977111edb.83.1593009954891; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 07:45:54 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200622100520.143622-1-darekm@google.com> In-Reply-To: From: Guenter Roeck Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 07:45:43 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] media: cros-ec-cec: do not bail on device_init_wakeup failure To: Dariusz Marcinkiewicz Cc: Hans Verkuil , linux-media@vger.kernel.org, Neil Armstrong , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Benson Leung , Enric Balletbo i Serra , Guenter Roeck , Alexandre Belloni , Lee Jones , Sebastian Reichel , Dariusz Marcinkiewicz , open list Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 5:40 AM Dariusz Marcinkiewicz wrote: > > Hello. > > I realized that I sent the previous answer using HTML, and as a > consequence it was blocked from mailing lists. Sending it again > (apologies for double posting). > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 12:23 PM Hans Verkuil wrote: > > > > On 22/06/2020 12:05, Dariusz Marcinkiewicz wrote: > > > Do not fail probing when device_init_wakeup fails. > > > > > > device_init_wakeup fails when the device is already enabled as wakeup > > > device. Hence, the driver fails to probe the device if: > > > - The device has already been enabled for wakeup (via e.g. sysfs) > > > - The driver has been unloaded and is being loaded again. > > > > > > This goal of the patch is to fix the above cases. > > > > > > Overwhelming majority of the drivers do not check device_init_wakeup > > > return value. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Dariusz Marcinkiewicz > > > > This can be CCed to stable, I guess? > > > > That issue is not a recent regression but has been in there since the > very beginning. So it might be argued that is it not severe enough to > warrant cc'ing stable. Happy to do that anyways if you think > otherwise. > Confused. Internally you would like to have this patch applied to chromeos-4.4. Here you suggest that it may not be important enough to apply to stable releases. Which one is it ? Thanks, Guenter > > Can you provide a Fixes: tag as well? > > > > Done, submitted v2 with that a couple of days ago. > > Thank you and best regards.