On 09/06/2013 05:25 PM, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> On 09/06/2013 11:05 AM, Arend van Spriel wrote:
>> On 09/06/2013 10:05 AM, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> 2013/9/5 Arend van Spriel <arend@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>> Since 3.11-rc4 I am seeing a problem with bcma on x64 (see attached
>>>> log). I
>>>> thought I misconfigured my setup, but just upgraded to 3.11 and I am
>>>> still
>>>> seeing the same issue. Did you have any reports like this?
>>>
>>> Unfortunately I wasn't testing final 3.11 with x86_64, I'll give it a
>>> try over the weekend.
>>>
>>
>> I am bisecting. Will let you know when I find something.
>
> Bisect points to:
>
> fd4edf197544bae1c77d84bad354aa7ce1d08ce1 is the first bad commit
> commit fd4edf197544bae1c77d84bad354aa7ce1d08ce1
> Author: Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon Jul 15 13:15:08 2013 +0200
>
> bcma: fix handling of big addrl
>
> The return value of bcma_erom_get_addr_desc() is a unsigned value
> and it
> could wrap around in the two complement writing. This happens for one
> core in the BCM4708 SoC.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: John W. Linville <linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> It is probably caused by using IS_ERR_VALUE() macro which does a
> unsigned long cast, which gives different results on 64-bit platform.
>
> This patch was submitted upstream yesterday by Dave for 3.12-rc1.
>
> Regards,
> Arend
>
Hi Arend,
Thanks for spotting this. This commit is not in final 3.11, otherwise
I would have suspected it before.
Could you please try the attached patch.
Hauke
>From 4a6337b38369977b94d6e752c57b09e7f4539830 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 18:32:41 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] bcma: fix error handling
---
drivers/bcma/scan.c | 12 +++++++-----
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/bcma/scan.c b/drivers/bcma/scan.c
index cd6b20f..b7906d5 100644
--- a/drivers/bcma/scan.c
+++ b/drivers/bcma/scan.c
@@ -269,6 +269,8 @@ static struct bcma_device *bcma_find_core_reverse(struct bcma_bus *bus, u16 core
return NULL;
}
+#define IS_ERR_VALUE_U32 unlikely((x) >= (u32)-MAX_ERRNO)
+
static int bcma_get_next_core(struct bcma_bus *bus, u32 __iomem **eromptr,
struct bcma_device_id *match, int core_num,
struct bcma_device *core)
@@ -351,11 +353,11 @@ static int bcma_get_next_core(struct bcma_bus *bus, u32 __iomem **eromptr,
* the main register space for the core
*/
tmp = bcma_erom_get_addr_desc(bus, eromptr, SCAN_ADDR_TYPE_SLAVE, 0);
- if (tmp == 0 || IS_ERR_VALUE(tmp)) {
+ if (tmp == 0 || IS_ERR_VALUE_U32(tmp)) {
/* Try again to see if it is a bridge */
tmp = bcma_erom_get_addr_desc(bus, eromptr,
SCAN_ADDR_TYPE_BRIDGE, 0);
- if (tmp == 0 || IS_ERR_VALUE(tmp)) {
+ if (tmp == 0 || IS_ERR_VALUE_U32(tmp)) {
return -EILSEQ;
} else {
bcma_info(bus, "Bridge found\n");
@@ -369,7 +371,7 @@ static int bcma_get_next_core(struct bcma_bus *bus, u32 __iomem **eromptr,
for (j = 0; ; j++) {
tmp = bcma_erom_get_addr_desc(bus, eromptr,
SCAN_ADDR_TYPE_SLAVE, i);
- if (IS_ERR_VALUE(tmp)) {
+ if (IS_ERR_VALUE_U32(tmp)) {
/* no more entries for port _i_ */
/* pr_debug("erom: slave port %d "
* "has %d descriptors\n", i, j); */
@@ -386,7 +388,7 @@ static int bcma_get_next_core(struct bcma_bus *bus, u32 __iomem **eromptr,
for (j = 0; ; j++) {
tmp = bcma_erom_get_addr_desc(bus, eromptr,
SCAN_ADDR_TYPE_MWRAP, i);
- if (IS_ERR_VALUE(tmp)) {
+ if (IS_ERR_VALUE_U32(tmp)) {
/* no more entries for port _i_ */
/* pr_debug("erom: master wrapper %d "
* "has %d descriptors\n", i, j); */
@@ -404,7 +406,7 @@ static int bcma_get_next_core(struct bcma_bus *bus, u32 __iomem **eromptr,
for (j = 0; ; j++) {
tmp = bcma_erom_get_addr_desc(bus, eromptr,
SCAN_ADDR_TYPE_SWRAP, i + hack);
- if (IS_ERR_VALUE(tmp)) {
+ if (IS_ERR_VALUE_U32(tmp)) {
/* no more entries for port _i_ */
/* pr_debug("erom: master wrapper %d "
* has %d descriptors\n", i, j); */
--
1.7.10.4
