From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DF7FC2D0DB for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 11:38:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AA7D2468C for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 11:38:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728779AbgAWLh7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Jan 2020 06:37:59 -0500 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:38148 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726194AbgAWLh6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Jan 2020 06:37:58 -0500 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E13B1328; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 03:37:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.1.197.50] (e120937-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.197.50]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DA3513F6C4; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 03:37:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH V4] firmware: arm_scmi: Make scmi core independent of the transport type To: Viresh Kumar , Sudeep Holla Cc: arnd@arndb.de, jassisinghbrar@gmail.com, peng.fan@nxp.com, peter.hilber@opensynergy.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org References: <20200121183818.GA11522@bogus> <20200122121538.GA31240@bogus> <20200123103033.GA7511@bogus> <20200123112711.mggm7ayxcqnr54yf@vireshk-i7> From: Cristian Marussi Message-ID: <6b614d90-6326-db81-12dc-a0b4a467400f@arm.com> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 11:37:55 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200123112711.mggm7ayxcqnr54yf@vireshk-i7> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 23/01/2020 11:27, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 23-01-20, 10:30, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:15:38PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote: >>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 08:06:23AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: >>> >> >> [...] >> >>>> Can you please help me getting this tested, now that I have rebased it >>>> as well :) ? >>>> >>> >>> Sure, I will give it a go on my Juno. Thanks for the rebase, makes it >>> simpler. >>> >> >> Sorry for the delay. I gave this a spin on my Juno. I am seeing below >> warning once on boot but it continues and everything seem to work fine. >> Also the warning is not related to this change I believe and this patch >> is just helping to hit some corner case with deferred probe and devres. >> I need to spend some time to debug it. >> >> Regards, >> Sudeep >> >> --->8 >> >> WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 187 at drivers/base/dd.c:519 really_probe+0x11c/0x418 >> Modules linked in: >> CPU: 1 PID: 187 Comm: kworker/1:2 Not tainted 5.5.0-rc7-00026-gf7231cd3108d-dirty #20 >> Hardware name: ARM LTD ARM Juno Development Platform/ARM Juno Development Platform, BIOS EDK II Jan 16 2020 >> Workqueue: events deferred_probe_work_func >> pstate: 80000005 (Nzcv daif -PAN -UAO) >> pc : really_probe+0x11c/0x418 >> lr : really_probe+0x10c/0x418 >> Call trace: >> really_probe+0x11c/0x418 >> driver_probe_device+0xe4/0x138 >> __device_attach_driver+0x90/0x110 >> bus_for_each_drv+0x80/0xd0 >> __device_attach+0xdc/0x160 >> device_initial_probe+0x18/0x20 >> bus_probe_device+0x98/0xa0 >> deferred_probe_work_func+0x90/0xe0 >> process_one_work+0x1ec/0x4a8 >> worker_thread+0x210/0x490 >> kthread+0x110/0x118 >> ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18 >> ---[ end trace 06f96d55ce6093a8 ]--- > > Still it looks strange that the warning comes only after my patch :) In fact, got the same warning while testing your patch on JUNO at top of SCMI for-next. But then everything worked fine as Sudeep said. Thanks Cristian > > Should I send V5 (fixed few comments after reviews) now ? >