Re: [PATCH 0/4] thermal: fix locking regressions in linux-next

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 3:37 PM Daniel Lezcano
<daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 14/12/2022 15:02, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 2:18 PM Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> This series fixes some of the fallout after the thermal changes that
> >> just landed in linux-next.
> >>
> >> Lockdep reported a lock inversion in one of the Qualcomm drivers and a
> >> closer review revealed that the changes had also broken the sysfs
> >> interface for at least three drivers.
> >>
> >> Note that a simple revert of the offending patches was not an option as
> >> some of the infrastructure that the old implementation relied on has
> >> also been removed.
> >
> > I've dropped that material from my linux-next branch and Daniel,
> > please also remove it from your branch that is pulled by linux-next so
> > that it doesn't show up in there until 6.2-rc1 is out.
> >
> > It clearly is not ready for merging in its current form.
>
> I rebased a linux-next branch without the generic trip points rework.

Thanks!

> It can be inverted with the other changes without conflicts.

Sounds good.

> I've pushed the branch in case you want to have a look. If you think it
> is acceptable in this form, I can send a tagged PR for 6.2-rc1 again.

It looks OK, so please send a PR.

> > It is still present in my bleeding-edge branch, though, so please
> > apply the patches from Johan on top of it and send a new PR to me, so
> > I can add it back to my linux-next branch once 6.2-rc1 appears.
> >
> > It would be good to check the code again too for any more similar fallout.
>
> I've been through already, the exynos fix is not necessary. But anyway,
> I agree we should keep these changes for the next release, it is better.

Awesome, thanks!