On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:19:41AM +0700, Thang Q. Nguyen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 2:50 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > wrote:
>
> 4.13-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me
> know.
>
> ------------------
>
> From: Adam Wallis <awallis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> commit c6b8e79306f515b5483eb11076e0fbfc140434a8 upstream.
>
> Commit 4c39d4b949d3 ("usb: xhci: use bus->sysdev for DMA configuration")
> updated the method determining DMA for XHCI from sysdev. However, this
> patch broke the ability to enumerate the FWNODE from parent ACPI devices
> from the child plat XHCI device.
>
> Currently, xhci_plat is not set up properly when the parent device is an
> ACPI node. The conditions that xhci_plat_probe should satisfy are
>
> 1. xhci_plat comes from firmware
> 2. xhci_plat is child of a device from firmware (dwc3-plat)
> 3. xhci_plat is grandchild of a pci device (dwc3-pci)
>
> Case 2 is covered when the child is an OF node (by checking
> sysdev->parent->of_node), however, an ACPI parent will return NULL in
> the of_node check and will thus not result in sysdev being set to
> sysdev->parent
>
> [ 17.591549] xhci-hcd: probe of xhci-hcd.6.auto failed with error -5
>
> This change adds a check for ACPI to completely allow for condition 2.
> This is done by first checking if the parent node is of type ACPI (e.g.,
> dwc3-plat) and set sysdev to sysdev->parent if either of the two
> following conditions are met:
>
> 1: If fwnode is empty (in the case that platform_device_add_properties
> was not called on the allocated platform device)
> 2: fwnode exists but is not of type ACPI (this would happen if
> platform_device_add_properties was called on the allocated device.
> Instead of type FWNODE_ACPI, you would end up with FWNODE_PDATA)
>
> Fixes: 4c39d4b949d3 ("usb: xhci: use bus->sysdev for DMA configuration")
> Tested-by: Thang Q. Nguyen <tqnguyen@xxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Adam Wallis <awallis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> ---
> drivers/usb/host/xhci-plat.c | 16 ++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/drivers/usb/host/xhci-plat.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/host/xhci-plat.c
> @@ -186,14 +186,18 @@ static int xhci_plat_probe(struct platfo
> * 2. xhci_plat is child of a device from firmware (dwc3-plat)
> * 3. xhci_plat is grandchild of a pci device (dwc3-pci)
> */
> - sysdev = &pdev->dev;
> - if (sysdev->parent && !sysdev->of_node && sysdev->parent->of_node)
> - sysdev = sysdev->parent;
> + for (sysdev = &pdev->dev; sysdev; sysdev = sysdev->parent) {
> + if (is_of_node(sysdev->fwnode) ||
> + is_acpi_device_node(sysdev->fwnode))
> + break;
> #ifdef CONFIG_PCI
> - else if (sysdev->parent && sysdev->parent->parent &&
> - sysdev->parent->parent->bus == &pci_bus_type)
> - sysdev = sysdev->parent->parent;
> + else if (sysdev->bus == &pci_bus_type)
> + break;
> #endif
> + }
> +
> + if (!sysdev)
> + sysdev = &pdev->dev;
>
> /* Try to set 64-bit DMA first */
> if (WARN_ON(!sysdev->dma_mask))
>
>
>
> This patch and Sriram's patches below should come together:
>
> d64ff406e5("usb: dwc3: use bus->sysdev for DMA configuration")
>
> 8c9f2de459("usb: dwc3: Do not set dma coherent mask")
>
> a8c06e407e("usb: separate out sysdev pointer from usb_bus")
>
> aeb78cda51("usb: chipidea: use bus->sysdev for DMA configuration")
>
> 8123e4953f("usb: ehci: fsl: use bus->sysdev for DMA configuration")
>
> 4c39d4b949("usb: xhci: use bus->sysdev for DMA configuration")
>
> Otherwise, the below issue still happen:
>
> [ 17.591549] xhci-hcd: probe of xhci-hcd.6.auto failed with error -5
>
>
>
> The first 2 above patches are in linux-stable.git/linux-4.11.y. And all above
> Sriram's patches are in linux-stable.git/linux-4.12.y. This means we need the
> followings:
>
> - Apply this patch and 4 missing Sriram's patches into linux-4.11.y.
>
> - Apply this patch into linux-4.12.y
Huh? As Mathias said, all of the 4.11 and 4.12 patches are in 4.13,
right? We better not have missed them, as that is _not_ how we do
kernel development and version branching.
Can you please verify this?
Also note that 4.11.y and 4.12.y are end-of-life, and we in the
community are not adding any new patches to it. If you have a crazy
vendor that feels they want to maintain one of these kernel versions on
their own, then please go talk to them about it :)
thanks,
greg k-h