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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAHk-=wiWTU+=wK9pv_YG01rXSqApCS_oY+78Ztz5-ORH5a-kvg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210510025414.GA2041281@roeck-us.net> <CAHk-=wjsQz-RJzXPu6eeZE+R9m2SH6JoreV6e_mwguitZ5_=zw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210510193924.GA3929105@roeck-us.net>
In-Reply-To: <20210510193924.GA3929105@roeck-us.net>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Mon, 10 May 2021 15:20:41 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=whcSbW+CprMV4=F2QQG_yuoD9kJRi2Ec2XP8Hu1ixkYOA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Linux 5.13-rc1
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
        Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Just adding Greg & co explicitly to the participants to make sure
they're aware of this..

Greg? This came through your driver core tree.

                Linus

On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 12:39 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 12:01:00PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Sun, May 9, 2021 at 7:54 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > Qemu test results:
> > >         total: 462 pass: 460 fail: 2
> > > Failed tests:
> > >         arm:raspi2:multi_v7_defconfig:net,usb:bcm2836-rpi-2-b:initrd
> > >         arm:raspi2:multi_v7_defconfig:sd:net,usb:bcm2836-rpi-2-b:rootfs
> > >
> > > The raspi2 problem (a crash in of_clk_add_hw_provider) is well known.
> > > It was introduced with commit 6579c8d97ad7 ("clk: Mark fwnodes when
> > > their clock provider is added"). Unfortunately it appears that there
> > > is still no agreement on how to fix it.
> >
> > Hmm. I see
> >
> >     https://lore.kernel.org/linux-acpi/20210426065618.588144-1-tudor.ambarus@microchip.com/
> >
> > and don't see any objections to that version.
> >
> > Does that fix it for you too?
> >
>
> Yes, it does. It was submitted ~2 weeks ago, so I have no idea what its
> status might be (it is not in the most recent -next). I just sent a
> Tested-by:, figuring that it can't hurt.
>
> Guenter