On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 1:36 AM, Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> John Stultz <john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> After commit 3c83dd577c7f ("wlcore: Add support for optional
>> wakeirq") landed upstream, I started seeing the following oops
>> on my HiKey board:
>>
>> [ 1.870279] Unable to handle kernel read from unreadable memory at virtual address 0000000000000010
>> [ 1.870283] Mem abort info:
>> [ 1.870287] ESR = 0x96000005
>> [ 1.870292] Exception class = DABT (current EL), IL = 32 bits
>> [ 1.870296] SET = 0, FnV = 0
>> [ 1.870299] EA = 0, S1PTW = 0
>> [ 1.870302] Data abort info:
>> [ 1.870306] ISV = 0, ISS = 0x00000005
>> [ 1.870309] CM = 0, WnR = 0
>> [ 1.870312] [0000000000000010] user address but active_mm is swapper
>> [ 1.870318] Internal error: Oops: 96000005 [#1] PREEMPT SMP
>> [ 1.870327] CPU: 0 PID: 5 Comm: kworker/0:0 Not tainted 4.19.0-05129-gb3d1e8e #48
>> [ 1.870331] Hardware name: HiKey Development Board (DT)
>> [ 1.870350] Workqueue: events_freezable mmc_rescan
>> [ 1.870358] pstate: 60400005 (nZCv daif +PAN -UAO)
>> [ 1.870366] pc : wl1271_probe+0x210/0x350
>> [ 1.870371] lr : wl1271_probe+0x210/0x350
>> [ 1.870374] sp : ffffff80080739b0
>> [ 1.870377] x29: ffffff80080739b0 x28: 0000000000000000
>> [ 1.870384] x27: 0000000000000000 x26: 0000000000000000
>> [ 1.870391] x25: 0000000000000036 x24: ffffffc074ecb598
>> [ 1.870398] x23: ffffffc07ffdce78 x22: ffffffc0744ed808
>> [ 1.870404] x21: ffffffc074ecbb98 x20: ffffff8008ff9000
>> [ 1.870411] x19: ffffffc0744ed800 x18: ffffff8008ff9a48
>> [ 1.870418] x17: 0000000000000000 x16: 0000000000000000
>> [ 1.870425] x15: ffffffc074ecb503 x14: ffffffffffffffff
>> [ 1.870431] x13: ffffffc074ecb502 x12: 0000000000000030
>> [ 1.870438] x11: 0101010101010101 x10: 0000000000000040
>> [ 1.870444] x9 : ffffffc075400248 x8 : ffffffc075400270
>> [ 1.870451] x7 : 0000000000000000 x6 : 0000000000000000
>> [ 1.870457] x5 : 0000000000000000 x4 : 0000000000000000
>> [ 1.870463] x3 : 0000000000000000 x2 : 0000000000000000
>> [ 1.870469] x1 : 0000000000000028 x0 : 0000000000000000
>> [ 1.870477] Process kworker/0:0 (pid: 5, stack limit = 0x(____ptrval____))
>> [ 1.870480] Call trace:
>> [ 1.870485] wl1271_probe+0x210/0x350
>> [ 1.870491] sdio_bus_probe+0x100/0x128
>> [ 1.870500] really_probe+0x1a8/0x2b8
>> [ 1.870506] driver_probe_device+0x58/0x100
>> [ 1.870511] __device_attach_driver+0x94/0xd8
>> [ 1.870517] bus_for_each_drv+0x70/0xc8
>> [ 1.870522] __device_attach+0xe0/0x140
>> [ 1.870527] device_initial_probe+0x10/0x18
>> [ 1.870532] bus_probe_device+0x94/0xa0
>> [ 1.870537] device_add+0x374/0x5b8
>> [ 1.870542] sdio_add_func+0x60/0x88
>> [ 1.870546] mmc_attach_sdio+0x1b0/0x358
>> [ 1.870551] mmc_rescan+0x2cc/0x390
>> [ 1.870558] process_one_work+0x12c/0x320
>> [ 1.870563] worker_thread+0x48/0x458
>> [ 1.870569] kthread+0xf8/0x128
>> [ 1.870575] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
>> [ 1.870583] Code: 92400c21 b2760021 a90687a2 97e95bf9 (f9400803)
>> [ 1.870587] ---[ end trace 1e15f81d3c139ca9 ]---
>>
>> It seems since we don't have a wakeirq value in the dts, the wakeirq
>> value in wl1271_probe() is zero, which then causes trouble in
>> irqd_get_trigger_type(irq_get_irq_data(wakeirq)).
>>
>> This patch tries to address this by checking if wakeirq is zero,
>> and not trying to add it to the resources if that is the case.
>>
>> Cc: Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Eyal Reizer <eyalr@xxxxxx>
>> Cc: Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Acked-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Any particular reason why you marked this as RFC? I'm asking because I
Mostly out of habit. I do that on the first pass submissions. But yea,
no objection if it were to be taken.
> would like to apply this patch as is and push to 4.20.
>
> I'll just add:
>
> Fixes: 3c83dd577c7f ("wlcore: Add support for optional wakeirq")
That would be great!
thanks
-john
