On 6/10/2021 9:03 PM, Jack Pham wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 01:11:42PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
Jack Pham <jackp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 11:20:12AM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
Jack Pham <jackp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@xxxxxxx> writes:
I've been able to bisect the panic and the offending commit is 568262bf5492 ("usb:
dwc3: core: Add shutdown callback for dwc3"). I can provide more diagnostic
information if needed and I can help test the fix.
if you simply revert that commit in HEAD, does the problem really go
away?
Kernel built from commit 324c92e5e0ee, which is the kernel tip today, the panic is
there. Reverting the offending commit, 568262bf5492, makes the panic disappear.
Want to send a revert so I can take it now?
I can send a revert, but Felipe was asking Sandeep (the commit author) for a fix,
so I'll leave it up to Felipe to decide how to proceed.
I'm okay with a revert. Feel free to add my Acked-by: Felipe Balbi
<balbi@xxxxxxxxxx> or it.
Sandeep, please send a new version that doesn't encounter the same
issue. Make sure to test by reloading the driver in a tight loop for
several iterations.
This would probably be tricky to test on other "glue" drivers as the
problem appears to be specific only to dwc3_of_simple. It looks like
both dwc3_of_simple and the dwc3 core now (due to 568262bf5492) each
implement respective .shutdown callbacks. The latter is simply a wrapper
around dwc3_remove(). And from the panic call stack above we see that
dwc3_of_simple_shutdown() calls of_platform_depopulate() which will
again call dwc3_remove() resulting in the double remove.
So would an alternative approach be to protect against dwc3_remove()
getting called multiple times? IMO it'd be a bit messy to have to add
no, I don't think so. That sounds like a workaround. We should be able
to guarantee that ->remove() doesn't get called twice using the driver
model properly.
Completely fair. So then having a .shutdown callback that directly calls
dwc3_remove() is probably not the right thing to do as it completely
bypasses the driver model so if and when the driver core does later
release the device from the driver that's how we end up with the double
remove.
yeah, I would agree with that.
additional checks there to know if it had already been called. So maybe
avoid it altogether--should dwc3_of_simple_shutdown() just skip calling
of_platform_depopulate()?
I don't know what the idiomatic is nowadays, but at least early on, we
had to call depopulate.
So any suggestions on how to fix the original issue Sandeep was trying
to fix with 568262bf5492? Maybe implement .shutdown in dwc3_qcom and have
it follow what dwc3_of_simple does with of_platform_depopulate()? But
then wouldn't other "glues" want/need to follow suit?
I think we can implement shutdown in core, but we need to careful with
it. Instead of just blindly calling remove, let's extract the common
parts to another internal function that both remove and shutdown
call. debugfs removal should not be part of that generic method :-)
Hi Sandeep,
Upon re-reading your description in 568262bf5492 it sounds like the
original intention of your patch is basically to quiesce the HW so that
it doesn't continue to run after SMMU/IOMMU is disabled right?
If that is the case, couldn't we simply call only dwc3_core_exit_mode()
assuming there is no other requirement to do any other cleanup/teardown
(PHYs, clocks, resets, runtime PM, et al)? This function should do the
bare minimum of stopping the controller in whatever mode (host or
peripheral) it is currently operating in.
Yes that was the intention. I will call only dwc3_core_exit_mode()
and check. Is there any way we can do from dwc3 qcom glue driver to
avoid problems for other glue drivers?
Anything in that generic method should, probably, be idempotent.
Yes we'll need to ensure that dwc3_core_exit_mode() can be called
multiple times without additional side effects. At first glance this
probably means setting dwc->xhci and dwc->gadget to NULL from
dwc3_host_exit() and dwc3_gadget_exit(), respectively.
Ok. Is there any way to test this ?
Thanks,
Jack
