On Tue 07 Mar 03:01 CET 2017, Jonathan Neusch?fer wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 05, 2017 at 04:49:30PM +0000, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > On Sun 05 Mar 05:01 GMT 2017, Jonathan Neusch?fer wrote:
> [...]
> > > FWIW, I enabled CONFIG_QCOM_SMSM on my test system (an Asus Padfone,
> > > based on MSM8974; I'm using the Sony Xperia Honami DT because it's close
> > > enough), and I think it failed to initialize:
> > >
> >
> > Using Honami should work so far, but please do write a patch adding the
> > Padfone, so that we don't accidentally break your HW at some point.
>
> I can try how far I get, but unfortunately I don't have hardware
> documentation or schematics, because I'm a hobbyist.
>
If this is something that you will continue to hack on and you think
anyone else will be interested in having then please do submit patches
for it.
> > > [ 0.647743] qcom-smsm smsm: no smsm size info, using defaults
> > > [ 0.647775] qcom-smsm smsm: unable to allocate shared state entry
> > >
> >
> > Could you please confirm where in qcom_smem_alloc_global() we're
> > failing? As far as I can tell we should fail with -EEXIST or if the
> > passed "size" parameter is bogus -ENOMEM (but the default number of
> > entries really should be less than the amount of free SMEM space).
>
> * qcom_smem_get returns -EPROBE_DEFER:
>
> void *ptr = ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER);
> if (!__smem)
> return ptr;
>
> * smsm_get_size_info prints "no smsm size info, using defaults\n"
> * qcom_smem_alloc also returns -EPROBE_DEFER early.
>
>
> BTW, I think smsm_get_size_info is using uninitialized memory here:
>
> size_t size; /* is uninitialized */
> struct { ... } *info;
>
> /* qcom_smem_get returns early without setting size */
> info = qcom_smem_get(QCOM_SMEM_HOST_ANY, SMEM_SMSM_SIZE_INFO, &size);
>
> /*
> * PTR_ERR(info) is not -ENOENT.
> * size (still uninitialized) is compared with the size of the local
> * struct defined above.
> */
> if (PTR_ERR(info) == -ENOENT || size != sizeof(*info)) {
> ...
> }
>
Thanks for your analysis!
As you say the smsm driver is missing handling of probe deferral - which
is wrong. Could you please propose a patch checking for EPROBE_DEFER and
propagate this error as return value from probe()? (Without an error
message)
Regards,
Bjorn
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
