From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S932997AbdGKPHH (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 11 Jul 2017 11:07:07 -0400
Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:44617 "EHLO
        Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S932596AbdGKPHF (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 11 Jul 2017 11:07:05 -0400
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 17:07:01 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@collabora.co.uk>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT pull] irq updates for 4.13
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1707111636180.1799@nanos>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1707111654530.1799@nanos>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1707091044210.2493@nanos> <20170710133505.eo6w73kq2327n34p@earth> <CA+55aFz5=ubNvhTUTzk3kFuLMFToP7xh7h8NDXDor9w+cjsCBA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1707110815440.1799@nanos> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1707110933590.1799@nanos>
 <20170711135131.GW3730@atomide.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1707111636180.1799@nanos>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2017, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > * Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> [170711 02:48]:
> > And "external abort on non-linefetch" means something is not clocked
> > in this case. The following alone makes things boot for me again, but I don't
> > quite follow what has now changed with the ordering.. Thomas, any ideas?
> 
> Ah. Now that makes sense.
> 
> Unpatched the ordering is:
> 
> 	  chip_bus_lock(desc);
> 	  irq_request_resources(desc);
> 
> Now the offending change reordered the calls. OMAP gpio has:
> 
>     omap_gpio_irq_bus_lock()
>        pm_runtime_get_sync(bank->chip.parent);
> 
> So that at least explains the error. So that omap gpio irq chip (ab)uses
> the bus_lock() callback to do runtime power management. Sigh, I did not
> expect that. Let me have a deeper look if that's OMAP only or whether this
> happens in other places as well.

So OMAP-GPIO is the only driver which abuses bus_lock/unlock() in that way
and gets surprised.

Thanks,

	tglx