Hi Francesco, > On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 09:33:09PM +0100, Francesco Dolcini wrote: > > Hello all, > > while doing some test with current [1] Linux mainline I randomly hit a > > warning. It is not systematic and I cannot really tell when it was > > introduced, posting here to collect some ideas. > > > > Amitkumar, Neeraj: to me the issue is around the bluetooth/btnxpuart > > driver, however I could also be plain wrong. > > > > The issue was reproduced on a Toradex Verdin AM62 [2] that is based on > > a TI > > AM625 SOC (arm64) running with a arm64 defconfig and built with GCC 9 > [3]. > > > > [ 9.599027] Loaded X.509 cert 'sforshee: 00b28ddf47aef9cea7' > > [ 9.962266] Bluetooth: hci0: Frame reassembly failed (-84) > > [ 9.972939] ------------[ cut here ]------------ > > [ 9.977922] serial serial0: receive_buf returns -84 (count = 6) > > [ 9.994857] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 37 at drivers/tty/serdev/serdev- > ttyport.c:37 ttyport_receive_buf+0xd8/0xf8 > > [ 10.004840] Modules linked in: mwifiex_sdio(+) mwifiex > snd_soc_simple_card crct10dif_ce cfg80211 snd_soc_simple_card_utils > k3_j72xx_bandgap rti_wdt rtc_ti_k3 btnxpuart bluetooth sa2ul ecdh_generic > ecc sha256_generic tidss rfkill libsha256 drm_dma_helper > snd_soc_davinci_mcasp authenc omap_mailbox snd_soc_ti_udma > snd_soc_ti_edma snd_soc_ti_sdma atmel_mxt_ts ina2xx snd_soc_nau8822 > ti_sn65dsi83 tc358768 ti_ads1015 tps65219_pwrbutton at24 m_can_platform > industrialio_triggered_buffer drm_kms_helper m_can kfifo_buf rtc_ds1307 > lm75 pwm_tiehrpwm can_dev spi_omap2_mcspi panel_lvds pwm_bl > libcomposite fuse drm backlight ipv6 > > [ 10.059984] CPU: 0 PID: 37 Comm: kworker/u4:2 Not tainted 6.7.0-rc2- > 00147-gf1a09972a45a #1 > > [ 10.071793] Hardware name: Toradex Verdin AM62 WB on Verdin > Development Board (DT) > > [ 10.082898] Workqueue: events_unbound flush_to_ldisc > > [ 10.091345] pstate: 60000005 (nZCv daif -PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS > BTYPE=--) > > [ 10.101820] pc : ttyport_receive_buf+0xd8/0xf8 > > [ 10.109712] lr : ttyport_receive_buf+0xd8/0xf8 > > [ 10.117581] sp : ffff800082b9bd20 > > [ 10.124202] x29: ffff800082b9bd20 x28: ffff00000000ee05 x27: > ffff0000002f21c0 > > [ 10.134735] x26: ffff000002931820 x25: 61c8864680b583eb x24: > ffff0000002f21b8 > > [ 10.145209] x23: ffff00000026e740 x22: ffff0000002f21e0 x21: > ffffffffffffffac > > [ 10.155686] x20: ffff000000da5c00 x19: 0000000000000006 x18: > 0000000000000000 > > [ 10.166178] x17: ffff7fffbe0e7000 x16: ffff800080000000 x15: > 000039966db1c650 > > [ 10.176564] x14: 000000000000022c x13: 000000000000022c x12: > 0000000000000000 > > [ 10.186979] x11: 000000000000000a x10: 0000000000000a60 x9 : > ffff800082b9bb80 > > [ 10.197352] x8 : ffff00000026f200 x7 : ffff00003fd90080 x6 : > 00000000000022e5 > > [ 10.207680] x5 : 00000000410fd030 x4 : 0000000000c0000e x3 : > ffff7fffbe0e7000 > > [ 10.218051] x2 : 0000000000000002 x1 : 0000000000000000 x0 : > 0000000000000000 > > [ 10.228393] Call trace: > > [ 10.233989] ttyport_receive_buf+0xd8/0xf8 > > [ 10.241224] flush_to_ldisc+0xbc/0x1a4 > > [ 10.248117] process_scheduled_works+0x16c/0x28c > > [ 10.255851] worker_thread+0x16c/0x2e0 > > [ 10.262673] kthread+0x11c/0x128 > > [ 10.268953] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 > > [ 10.275460] ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- > > [ 10.294674] Bluetooth: hci0: Frame reassembly failed (-84) > > [ 10.461657] Bluetooth: hci0: Frame reassembly failed (-84) > > [ 10.472025] Bluetooth: hci0: Frame reassembly failed (-84) > > I think that what is happening is the following: > > -> serdev-ttyport.c:ttyport_receive_buf() > -> btnxpuart.c:btnxpuart_receive_buf() > -> h4_recv_buf() errors out > -> return -84 > -> warn because ret is <0 > > Is this the desired behavior? If I understand correct recv_buf() is supposed to > return how many bytes it has consumed, e.g. something from 0 to count. The recv_buf() returns how many bytes it has consumed and created a complete RX packet from received chunks, if everything goes as expected (>=0). However, if there is a packet corruption, or the payload length in received header, and actual payload are not equal, or wrong sequence is received or there is a probable baudrate mismatch, it returns an error (<0). In this case, -84 is illegal sequence error. It would help if you could share with us some more info: 1) Test steps. 2) Logic Analyzer captures of UART TX/RX lines when this issue occurred, to check what is causing this illegal sequence error. 3) Is PDn pin toggled? If yes, then chip is probably sending out bootloader signatures at 115200, while host UART is at 3000000. Thanks, Neeraj
