Re: [PATCH v3] rtc: ac100: Fix ac100 determine rate bug

[Philipp Rossak <embed3d@gmail.com>]

On 15.02.2018 15:11, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 02:56:12PM +0100, Philipp Rossak wrote:
>> This patch fixes a bug, that prevents the Allwinner A83T and the A80
>> from a successful boot.
>>
>> The bug is there since v4.16-rc1 and appeared after the clk branch was
>> merged.
> 
> Out of curiosity, which patch has introduced this? I couldn't find any
> obvious match.
> 

I wasn't also n

>> You can find the shortend trace below:
>>
>> Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address
>> 00000000
>> pgd = (ptrval)
>> [00000000] *pgd=00000000
>> Internal error: Oops: 5 [#1] SMP ARM
>> Modules linked in:
>> CPU: 0 PID: 49 Comm: kworker/0:1 Not tainted 4.15.0-10190-gb89e32ccd1be #2
>> Hardware name: Allwinner sun8i Family
>> Workqueue: events deferred_probe_work_func
>> PC is at clk_hw_get_rate+0x0/0x34
>> LR is at ac100_clkout_determine_rate+0x48/0x19c
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>> (clk_hw_get_rate) from (ac100_clkout_determine_rate+0x48/0x19c)
>> (ac100_clkout_determine_rate) from  (clk_core_set_rate_nolock+0x3c/0x1a0)
>> (clk_core_set_rate_nolock) from (clk_set_rate+0x30/0x88)
>> (clk_set_rate) from (of_clk_set_defaults+0x200/0x364)
>> (of_clk_set_defaults) from (platform_drv_probe+0x18/0xb0)
>>
>> To fix that bug, we first check if the return of the
>> clk_hw_get_parent_by_index is non zero. If it is zero we skip that
>> clock parent.
>>
>> The BUG report could be found here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/2/10/198
>>
>> Fixes: 04940631b8d2 ("rtc: ac100: Add clk output support")
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Philipp Rossak <embed3d@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>
>> Changes in v3:
>> 	* add information when the bug appeared
>> 	* make the comment more clear
>> Changes in v2:
>> 	* add tag Fixes: ... to commit message
>> 	* add comment to if statement why we are doing this check
>>
>>   drivers/rtc/rtc-ac100.c | 19 ++++++++++++++++++-
>>   1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-ac100.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-ac100.c
>> index 8ff9dc3fe5bf..2412aa2e8399 100644
>> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-ac100.c
>> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-ac100.c
>> @@ -183,7 +183,24 @@ static int ac100_clkout_determine_rate(struct clk_hw *hw,
>>   
>>   	for (i = 0; i < num_parents; i++) {
>>   		struct clk_hw *parent = clk_hw_get_parent_by_index(hw, i);
>> -		unsigned long tmp, prate = clk_hw_get_rate(parent);
>> +		unsigned long tmp, prate;
>> +
>> +		/*
>> +		 * The clock has two parents, one is a fixed clock which is
>> +		 * internally registered by the ac100 driver. The other parent
>> +		 * is a clock from the codec side of the chip, which we
>> +		 * properly declare and reference in the devicetree and is
>> +		 * not implemented in any driver right now.
>> +		 * If the clock core looks for the parent of that second
>> +		 * missing clock, it can't one that is registered and
>> +		 * returns NULL.
>> +		 * Thus we need to check if the parent exists before
>> +		 * we get the parent rate.
>> +		 */
>> +		if (!parent)
>> +			continue;
> 
> I'm sorry, but I still don't get it. When you register that clock, you
> will give it two parents. Why would that change during the life of the
> clock?
> 
> This really looks like a workaround rather than an actual fix.
> 
> Maxime
> 
I agree this is more a workaround!
A proper solution/fix would be to define the devicetree correct like this:

diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun8i-a83t-bananapi-m3.dts 
b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun8i-a83t-bananapi-m3.dts
index 6550bf0e594b..6f56d429f17e 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun8i-a83t-bananapi-m3.dts
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun8i-a83t-bananapi-m3.dts
@@ -175,11 +175,18 @@
                         compatible = "x-powers,ac100-rtc";
                         interrupt-parent = <&r_intc>;
                         interrupts = <0 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>;
-                       clocks = <&ac100_codec>;
+                       clocks = <&ac100_rtc_32k>;
                         #clock-cells = <1>;
                         clock-output-names = "cko1_rtc",
                                              "cko2_rtc",
                                              "cko3_rtc";
+
+                       ac100_rtc_32k: rtc-32k-oscillator {
+                               compatible = "fixed-clock";
+                               #clock-cells = <0>;
+                               clock-frequency  = <32768>;
+                               clock-output-names = "ac100-rtc-32k";
+                       };
                 };
         };
  };

What do you think about that solution?

I already tested it and it looks like it is working.

Philipp