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 S1754860AbcBCAzq (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 2 Feb 2016 19:55:46 -0500
Received: from v094114.home.net.pl ([79.96.170.134]:45092 "HELO
	v094114.home.net.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with SMTP id S1752906AbcBCAzo (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 2 Feb 2016 19:55:44 -0500
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
To: Tomas Winkler <tomasw@gmail.com>
Cc: Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@stratus.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Corey Minyard <minyard@acm.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Subject: Re: PM domain change on unbound devices warning on ipmi_si unload
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2016 01:56:45 +0100
Message-ID: <2170443.OF7QxBD1LM@vostro.rjw.lan>
User-Agent: KMail/4.11.5 (Linux/4.5.0-rc1+; KDE/4.11.5; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <CA+i0qc5-i1J6rJycuoLQfnQS1wPtf-mauDsSnZC_jdi1ap0wTg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56A99CF0.3090504@stratus.com> <2752876.M6QFrtSfOD@vostro.rjw.lan> <CA+i0qc5-i1J6rJycuoLQfnQS1wPtf-mauDsSnZC_jdi1ap0wTg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Sunday, January 31, 2016 11:38:21 PM Tomas Winkler wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 11:45 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
> > On Friday, January 29, 2016 12:56:14 PM Joe Lawrence wrote:
> >> On 01/29/2016 12:01 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 02:13:04PM -0600, Corey Minyard wrote:
> >> >> Tomeu, you added that check in
> >> >>
> >> >> [989561de9b5112999475b406557d9c7e9e59c041] PM / Domains: add setter for
> >> >> dev.pm_domain
> >> >>
> >> >> and either something is wrong in the platform device handling or elsewhere
> >> >> in the device code, if
> >> >> that check is valid.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > FYI, I'm hitting the exact same error on shutdown on one of my boxes.
> >> >
> >> > Please Cc me on updates.
> >> >
> >> > -- Steve
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > [53591.087861] kvm: exiting hardware virtualization
> >> > [53591.104798] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> >> > [53591.110058] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1 at /home/rostedt/work/git/linux-trace.git/drivers/base/power/common.c:150 dev_pm_domain_set+0x82/0x90()
> >> > [53591.123716] PM domains can only be changed for unbound devices
> >> > [53591.130158] Modules linked in: ip6table_filter ip6_tables ebtable_nat ebtables xt_CHECKSUM iptable_mangle bridge stp llc bluetooth lockd grace snd_hda_codec_hdmi snd_hda_codec_r
> >> > ealtek snd_hda_codec_generic snd_hda_intel snd_hda_codec snd_hwdep snd_hda_core vhost_net tun vhost x86_pkg_temp_thermal iTCO_wdt snd_seq snd_seq_device snd_pcm macvtap coretemp me
> >> > i_me iTCO_vendor_support hp_wmi rfkill sparse_keymap macvlan kvm_intel snd_timer mei lpc_ich snd i2c_i801 soundcore mfd_core kvm irqbypass acpi_cpufreq serio_raw wmi uinput crc32_p
> >> > clmul i915 crc32c_intel i2c_algo_bit e1000e drm_kms_helper ptp drm pps_core i2c_core video sunrpc
> >> > [53591.190440] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: systemd-shutdow Not tainted 4.5.0-rc1-test+ #155
> >> > [53591.198453] Hardware name: Hewlett-Packard HP Compaq Pro 6300 SFF/339A, BIOS K01 v02.05 05/07/2012
> >> > [53591.208031]  ffff8801195abc90 ffff8801195abc90 ffffffff8143ef63 ffff8801195abcd8
> >> > [53591.216168]  ffff8801195abcc8 ffffffff810acad6 ffff8801192d2328 0000000000000000
> >> > [53591.224299]  0000000000000001 ffff8801192d2388 00000000fee1dead ffff8801195abd28
> >> > [53591.232429] Call Trace:
> >> > [53591.235483]  [<ffffffff8143ef63>] dump_stack+0x44/0x61
> >> > [53591.241232]  [<ffffffff810acad6>] warn_slowpath_common+0x86/0xc0
> >> > [53591.247842]  [<ffffffff810acb5c>] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x4c/0x50
> >> > [53591.254193]  [<ffffffff810acb15>] ? warn_slowpath_fmt+0x5/0x50
> >> > [53591.260625]  [<ffffffff8157cf42>] dev_pm_domain_set+0x82/0x90
> >> > [53591.266970]  [<ffffffffa03f255e>] mei_me_remove+0xee/0x120 [mei_me]
> >> > [53591.273842]  [<ffffffff8147fe96>] pci_device_shutdown+0x36/0x70
> >> > [53591.280373]  [<ffffffff81570680>] device_shutdown+0xe0/0x1e0
> >> > [53591.286642]  [<ffffffff810d6df6>] kernel_restart_prepare+0x36/0x40
> >> > [53591.293439]  [<ffffffff810d6f62>] kernel_restart+0x12/0x60
> >> > [53591.299543]  [<ffffffff810d72ae>] SYSC_reboot+0x1ce/0x1f0
> >> > [53591.305562]  [<ffffffffa0008077>] ? 0xffffffffa0008077
> >> > [53591.311323]  [<ffffffff811b2e60>] ? stack_trace_call+0x40/0x60
> >> > [53591.317780]  [<ffffffffa0008077>] ? 0xffffffffa0008077
> >> > [53591.323552]  [<ffffffff8143eeb4>] ? _atomic_dec_and_lock+0x44/0xaf
> >> > [53591.330374]  [<ffffffff812a302b>] ? iput+0xbb/0x2c0
> >> > [53591.335880]  [<ffffffff810d7325>] ? SyS_reboot+0x5/0x10
> >> > [53591.341748]  [<ffffffff81003044>] ? lockdep_sys_exit_thunk+0x12/0x14
> >> > [53591.348743]  [<ffffffff810d732e>] SyS_reboot+0xe/0x10
> >> > [53591.354440]  [<ffffffff8185ee32>] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x12/0x76
> >> > [53591.361534] ---[ end trace 63b298fc6d5920e4 ]---
> >> > [53591.377714] e1000e: EEE TX LPI TIMER: 00000011
> >> > [53591.468245] sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Synchronizing SCSI cache
> >> > [53591.487321] reboot: Restarting system
> >> > [53591.491679] reboot: machine restart
> >> >
> >>
> >> Looks like Rafael adjusted for the platform shutdown case here:
> >>
> >>   https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/1/11/515
> >>
> >> Perhaps that would applicable to the pci shutdown as well?
> >
> > To the MEI driver's shutdown rather.  mei_me_remove() clears the pm_domain
> > pointer which is sort of questionable, but then the warning may be overkill
> > for this case.
> 
> Since MEI device  is running its own power management, in some cases
> we are  using PM domains just to avoid going through the PCI runtime
> pm handlers to avoid going to D3. IIRC we couldn't use
> PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_D3 as this not unique for runtime handlers
> I think this  requirement is  unique to the MEI device, so I'm not
> sure it's worth to push it into the PCI layer, maybe we just quite the
> warning somehow.

Does this help: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8170821/ ?

Thanks,
Rafael