On 5/29/23 09:37, Chris Packham wrote: > > On 29/05/23 14:04, Bagas Sanjaya wrote: >> On Sun, May 28, 2023 at 11:42:50PM +0000, Chris Packham wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> We have an embedded product with an Infineon SLM9670 TPM. After updating >>> to a newer LTS kernel version we started seeing the following warning at >>> boot. >>> >>> [ 4.741025] ------------[ cut here ]------------ >>> [ 4.749894] irq 38 handler tis_int_handler+0x0/0x154 enabled interrupts >>> [ 4.756555] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 0 at kernel/irq/handle.c:159 >>> __handle_irq_event_percpu+0xf4/0x180 >>> [ 4.765557] Modules linked in: >>> [ 4.768626] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 5.15.113 #1 >>> [ 4.774747] Hardware name: Allied Telesis x250-18XS (DT) >>> [ 4.780080] pstate: 60000005 (nZCv daif -PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS >>> BTYPE=--) >>> [ 4.787072] pc : __handle_irq_event_percpu+0xf4/0x180 >>> [ 4.792146] lr : __handle_irq_event_percpu+0xf4/0x180 >>> [ 4.797220] sp : ffff800008003e40 >>> [ 4.800547] x29: ffff800008003e40 x28: ffff8000093951c0 x27: >>> ffff80000902a9b8 >>> [ 4.807716] x26: ffff800008fe8d28 x25: ffff8000094a62bd x24: >>> ffff000001b92400 >>> [ 4.814885] x23: 0000000000000026 x22: ffff800008003ec4 x21: >>> 0000000000000000 >>> [ 4.822053] x20: 0000000000000001 x19: ffff000002381200 x18: >>> ffffffffffffffff >>> [ 4.829222] x17: ffff800076962000 x16: ffff800008000000 x15: >>> ffff800088003b57 >>> [ 4.836390] x14: 0000000000000000 x13: ffff8000093a5078 x12: >>> 000000000000035d >>> [ 4.843558] x11: 000000000000011f x10: ffff8000093a5078 x9 : >>> ffff8000093a5078 >>> [ 4.850727] x8 : 00000000ffffefff x7 : ffff8000093fd078 x6 : >>> ffff8000093fd078 >>> [ 4.857895] x5 : 000000000000bff4 x4 : 0000000000000000 x3 : >>> 0000000000000000 >>> [ 4.865062] x2 : 0000000000000000 x1 : 0000000000000000 x0 : >>> ffff8000093951c0 >>> [ 4.872230] Call trace: >>> [ 4.874686] __handle_irq_event_percpu+0xf4/0x180 >>> [ 4.879411] handle_irq_event+0x64/0xec >>> [ 4.883264] handle_level_irq+0xc0/0x1b0 >>> [ 4.887202] generic_handle_irq+0x30/0x50 >>> [ 4.891229] mvebu_gpio_irq_handler+0x11c/0x2a0 >>> [ 4.895780] handle_domain_irq+0x60/0x90 >>> [ 4.899720] gic_handle_irq+0x4c/0xd0 >>> [ 4.903398] call_on_irq_stack+0x20/0x4c >>> [ 4.907338] do_interrupt_handler+0x54/0x60 >>> [ 4.911538] el1_interrupt+0x30/0x80 >>> [ 4.915130] el1h_64_irq_handler+0x18/0x24 >>> [ 4.919244] el1h_64_irq+0x78/0x7c >>> [ 4.922659] arch_cpu_idle+0x18/0x2c >>> [ 4.926249] do_idle+0xc4/0x150 >>> [ 4.929404] cpu_startup_entry+0x28/0x60 >>> [ 4.933343] rest_init+0xe4/0xf4 >>> [ 4.936584] arch_call_rest_init+0x10/0x1c >>> [ 4.940699] start_kernel+0x600/0x640 >>> [ 4.944375] __primary_switched+0xbc/0xc4 >>> [ 4.948402] ---[ end trace 940193047b35b311 ]--- >>> >>> Initially I dismissed this as a warning that would probably be cleaned >>> up when we did more work on the TPM support for our product but we also >>> seem to be getting some new i2c issues and possibly a kernel stack >>> corruption that we've conflated with this TPM warning. >> Can you reproduce this issue on mainline? Can you also bisect to find >> the culprit? > > No the error doesn't appear on a recent mainline kernel. I do still get > > tpm_tis_spi spi1.1: 2.0 TPM (device-id 0x1B, rev-id 22) > tpm tpm0: [Firmware Bug]: TPM interrupt not working, polling instead > tpm tpm0: A TPM error (256) occurred attempting the self test > > but I think I was getting that on v5.15.110 > >> I repeat: Can you bisect between v5.15 and v5.15.112? -- An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
