Re: [PATCH] drm/imagination: Convert to dev_pm_domain_{at,de}tach_list()

[Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@mailbox.org>]

On 2/16/26 6:28 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 2/16/26 14:37, Matt Coster wrote:
>> On 16/02/2026 11:38, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>> On 2/16/26 11:58, Matt Coster wrote:
>>>> On 16/02/2026 10:11, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We're currently trying to force this issue to reproduce on hardware we
>>>> have on hand; we'd like to see it fixed properly as much as anyone.
>>>
>>> Yeah, no worries, I never doubted that. But getting things properly fixed
>>> can mean "revert, fix, reapply" when it comes to regressions in Linux --
>>> which is something that should not be seen as something bad, as Linus said
>>> himself (see below)!
>>>
>>>>  From our side at least, I don't believe this is a regression at all.
>>> In the end what matters is: some change afaics caused systems to not work
>>> anymore that used to be working -- that makes it a regression my the Linux
>>> kernels standards. And those by the same standards must be fixed, ideally
>>> quickly. Find a few quotes on that from Linus below that explains this
>>> better.
>> I feel like I should reiterate that the commit we're talking about
>> reverting is fundamental to support for one of the only two platforms
>> currently supported.
> 
> That might or might not be relevant, see the "back and forth" section
> from the Linus quotes.
> 
>> And that the changes to add "support" (just
>> bindings and DT) for the affected Renesas platforms came several months
>> *after* this.
> 
> Ohh? That might change things then. I relied on the info from Geert and
> Marek – and would be glad if you guys could sort this out, as you are
> the experts here (and I already got myself way deeper involved then I
> wanted to).

I already replied to Matt on this part -- I don't think the kernel crash 
is related to any specific platform. That the R-Car platform triggers it 
only means, that the crash is real and should be fixed.