From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932421AbdDRHZM (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Apr 2017 03:25:12 -0400 Received: from mail-pf0-f178.google.com ([209.85.192.178]:34007 "EHLO mail-pf0-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932147AbdDRHZK (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Apr 2017 03:25:10 -0400 Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 16:25:05 +0900 From: Tejun Heo To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9?= Przywara Cc: Icenowy Zheng , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Adam Borowski , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: sun50i-a64-pinctrl WARN_ON drivers/base/dd.c:349 Message-ID: <20170418072505.GE3899@wtj.duckdns.org> References: <20170315161406.smd4na25two55jjh@angband.pl> <197431489595078@web8g.yandex.ru> <20170316010615.GA23552@kroah.com> <20170317140812.GB5078@htj.duckdns.org> <785901489760914@web50g.yandex.ru> <20170317144422.GD5078@htj.duckdns.org> <3cf02066-ca0e-05f4-6a3d-ebc6d5373caf@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <3cf02066-ca0e-05f4-6a3d-ebc6d5373caf@arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.0 (2017-02-23) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 12:48:16AM +0100, André Przywara wrote: > So I see this problem easily now - on every boot - with an unpatched > 4.11-rc3 kernel and the (arm64) defconfig on a Pine64 or BananaPi M64. > I enabled devres.log and see that pinctrl probes early, but apparently > gets deferred, pretty late actually (after 43 ADDs). > > Now what sticks out from the sequence (see the attached log) is that > there are two un-matches ADDs with a devm_kmalloc of size 0: > sun50i-a64-pinctrl 1c20800.pinctrl: DEVRES ADD ffff80007bd84200 > devm_kzalloc_release (0 bytes) > sun50i-a64-pinctrl 1c20800.pinctrl: DEVRES ADD ffff80007bd84100 > devm_kzalloc_release (0 bytes) > > While all the other ADDs have a matching REL, those two have not. I > guess it's due to the size being 0. Does that ring a bell? AFAICS, 0 size allocs should be fine. > Or is due to the fact that these two ADDs are after the RELs have > already started, so at a point where the driver is already cleaned up? But this sounds problematic to me. So, these zero length allocations are happening after release of the device is initiated? Where are they coming from? Thanks. -- tejun