Re: PROBLEM: Crash after mm: fix initialization of struct page for holes in memory layout

2021-01-27 Thread Łukasz Majczak
): > > Hi Lukasz, > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 02:15:53PM +0100, Łukasz Majczak wrote: > > Hi Mike, > > > > I have started bisecting your patch and I have figured out that there > > might be something wrong with clamping - with comments out these lines > >

Re: PROBLEM: Crash after mm: fix initialization of struct page for holes in memory layout

2021-01-27 Thread Łukasz Majczak
", clamp(spfn, zone_spfn, zone_epfn), clamp(epfn, zone_spfn, zone_epfn)); for (pfn = spfn; pfn < epfn; pfn++) { if (!pfn_valid(ALIGN_DOWN(pfn, pageblock_nr_pages))) { pfn = ALIGN_DOWN(pfn, pageblock_nr_pages) Best regards, Lukasz śr., 27

Re: PROBLEM: Crash after mm: fix initialization of struct page for holes in memory layout

2021-01-27 Thread Łukasz Majczak
which is a part of AP -> serial chain as kernel messages are considered sensitive from a security standpoint.) Best regards, Lukasz śr., 27 sty 2021 o 12:19 Mike Rapoport napisał(a): > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 11:08:17AM +0100, Łukasz Majczak wrote: > > Hi Mike, > > > &g

Re: PROBLEM: Crash after mm: fix initialization of struct page for holes in memory layout

2021-01-27 Thread Łukasz Majczak
2:29AM +0100, Łukasz Majczak wrote: > > Crash after mm: fix initialization of struct page for holes in memory layout > > > > Hi, > > I was trying to run v5.11-rc5 on my Samsung Chromebook Pro (Caroline), > > but I've noticed it has crashed - unfortunately it seems

PROBLEM: Crash after mm: fix initialization of struct page for holes in memory layout

2021-01-27 Thread Łukasz Majczak
Crash after mm: fix initialization of struct page for holes in memory layout Hi, I was trying to run v5.11-rc5 on my Samsung Chromebook Pro (Caroline), but I've noticed it has crashed - unfortunately it seems to happen at a very early stage - No output to the console nor to the screen, so I have s

Re: [PATCH] tpm_tis: Add missing start/stop_tpm_chip calls

2021-01-26 Thread Łukasz Majczak
Hi Jarkko, Guenter Yes, here are the logs when failure occurs - https://gist.github.com/semihalf-majczak-lukasz/1575461f585f1e7fb1e9366b8eceaab9 Look for a phrase "TPM returned invalid status" Guenter - good suggestion - I will try to keep it as tight as possible. Best regards, Lukasz pon., 25

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] ASoC: Intel: Skylake: skl-topology: Fix OOPs ib skl_tplg_complete

2021-01-21 Thread Łukasz Majczak
Thanks Ricardo - I have checked it on Eve/Google Pixelbook Tested-by: Lukasz Majczak czw., 21 sty 2021 o 18:33 Rojewski, Cezary napisał(a): > > On 2021-01-21 6:16 PM, Ricardo Ribalda wrote: > > If dobj->control is not initialized we end up in an OOPs during > > skl_tplg_complete: > > > > [ 26

Re: [PATCH v2] ASoC: Intel: Skylake: Check the kcontrol against NULL

2021-01-20 Thread Łukasz Majczak
Hi Pierre, Is there anything more to do to get the ACK for this patch? Best regards, Lukasz wt., 12 sty 2021 o 12:34 Łukasz Majczak napisał(a): > > Hi, > > This is just a kind reminder. Is there anything more required to > upstream this patch? > > Best regards, > Lukasz

Re: [PATCH v2] ASoC: Intel: Skylake: Check the kcontrol against NULL

2021-01-12 Thread Łukasz Majczak
Hi, This is just a kind reminder. Is there anything more required to upstream this patch? Best regards, Lukasz czw., 17 gru 2020 o 14:06 Lukasz Majczak napisał(a): > > There is no check for the kcontrol against NULL and in some cases > it causes kernel to crash. > > Fixes: 2d744ecf2b984 ("ASoC

Re: [PATCH v3] ASoC: Intel: kbl_rt5663_rt5514_max98927: Split be_hw_params_fixup function

2020-07-02 Thread Łukasz Majczak
Hi, I am also ok with Harsha patch. I have checked it on my Eve and it looks ok. Best regards, Lukasz śr., 1 lip 2020 o 19:08 Pierre-Louis Bossart napisał(a): > > > >>> Tested and the following is something we can use without creating a new > >> dailink. > >>> struct snd_soc_dai *c

Re: [PATCH v3] ASoC: Intel: kbl_rt5663_rt5514_max98927: Split be_hw_params_fixup function

2020-06-29 Thread Łukasz Majczak
ct snd_soc_dpcm thus we cannot use container_of() on it. Best regards, Lukasz pon., 29 cze 2020 o 18:51 N, Harshapriya napisał(a): > > > -Original Message- > > From: Łukasz Majczak > > Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 4:11 AM > > To: N, Harshapriya > > Cc: a

Re: [PATCH v3] ASoC: Intel: kbl_rt5663_rt5514_max98927: Split be_hw_params_fixup function

2020-06-29 Thread Łukasz Majczak
Hi Harsha, We would like to continue the work on this, could you please suggest the correct approach. Best regards, Lukasz czw., 21 maj 2020 o 20:10 Pierre-Louis Bossart napisał(a): > > > > On 5/21/20 12:30 PM, Łukasz Majczak wrote: > > Hi Pierre > > > > If you wi

Re: [PATCH v3] ASoC: Intel: kbl_rt5663_rt5514_max98927: Split be_hw_params_fixup function

2020-05-21 Thread Łukasz Majczak
it sets min/max channels to 2 while for the "Kbl DMIC cap" it can be 2 or 4, that's is why I'm trying to split this, but maybe I'm missing here something. Best regards, Lukasz czw., 21 maj 2020 o 19:17 Pierre-Louis Bossart napisał(a): > > > > On 5/21/20 12:08 P

Re: [PATCH v3] ASoC: Intel: kbl_rt5663_rt5514_max98927: Split be_hw_params_fixup function

2020-05-21 Thread Łukasz Majczak
> > don't add a new dailink, this is not right. > Can you advise a better solution how to assign different fixup functions to mic and to speakers? I was looking at "dmic01" dailink in skl_nau88l25_max98357a.c as an example. Best regards, Lukasz

Re: [PATCH] ASoC: Intel: kbl_rt5663_rt5514_max98927: Split be_hw_params_fixup function

2020-05-21 Thread Łukasz Majczak
Pierre Sorry, I didn't get it for the first time, you are suggesting to not use DMIC01 as it is used by PCH-attached dmics by other drivers. Best regards, Lukasz czw., 21 maj 2020 o 16:36 Łukasz Majczak napisał(a): > > Yes, my bad > it should be: > + { "codec1

Re: [PATCH] ASoC: Intel: kbl_rt5663_rt5514_max98927: Split be_hw_params_fixup function

2020-05-21 Thread Łukasz Majczak
Yes, my bad it should be: + { "codec1_in", NULL, "DMIC01 Rx" }, + { "DMIC01 Rx", NULL, "AIF1 Capture" }, The whole idea of taking the mic for SSP0 definition is that each BE should have its own fixup. Before there was one fixup function, which checked inside which BE is connected to wh