From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Florian Fainelli Subject: Re: Crashes in -next due to 'phy: add support for a reset-gpio specification' Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 22:01:37 -0700 Message-ID: <573BF731.4090002@gmail.com> References: <573BF177.6090507@roeck-us.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <573BF177.6090507@roeck-us.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Guenter Roeck , "linux-next@vger.kernel.org" Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Uwe_Kleine-K=c3=b6nig?= , Network Development , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "David S. Miller" List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org Le 17/05/2016 21:37, Guenter Roeck a =C3=A9crit : > Hi, >=20 > my xtensa qemu tests crash in -next as follows. >=20 > [ ... ] >=20 > [ 9.366256] libphy: ethoc-mdio: probed > [ 9.367389] (null): could not attach to PHY > [ 9.368555] (null): failed to probe MDIO bus > [ 9.371540] Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual addr= ess > 0000001c > [ 9.371540] pc =3D d0320926, ra =3D 903209d1 > [ 9.375358] Oops: sig: 11 [#1] > [ 9.376081] PREEMPT > [ 9.377080] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper Not tainted > 4.6.0-next-20160517 #1 > [ 9.378397] task: d7c2c000 ti: d7c30000 task.ti: d7c30000 > [ 9.379394] a00: 903209d1 d7c31bd0 d7fb5810 00000001 00000000 > 00000000 d7f45c00 d7c31bd0 > [ 9.382298] a08: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00060100 > d04b0c10 d7f45dfc d7c31bb0 > [ 9.385732] pc: d0320926, ps: 00060110, depc: 00000018, excvaddr: > 0000001c > [ 9.387061] lbeg: d0322e35, lend: d0322e57 lcount: 00000000, sar: > 00000011 > [ 9.388173] > Stack: d7c31be0 00060700 d7f45c00 d7c31bd0 9021d509 d7c31c30 d7f45c00 > 00000000 > d0485dcc d0485dcc d7fb5810 d7c2c000 00000000 d7c31c30 d7f45c00 > d025befc > d0485dcc d7c30000 d7f45c34 d7c31bf0 9021c985 d7c31c50 d7f45c00 > d7f45c34 > [ 9.396652] Call Trace: > [ 9.397469] [] __device_release_driver+0x7d/0x98 > [ 9.398869] [] device_release_driver+0x15/0x20 > [ 9.400247] [] bus_remove_device+0xc1/0xd4 > [ 9.401569] [] device_del+0x109/0x15c > [ 9.402794] [] phy_mdio_device_remove+0xd/0x18 > [ 9.404124] [] mdiobus_unregister+0x40/0x5c > [ 9.405444] [] ethoc_probe+0x534/0x5b8 > [ 9.406742] [] platform_drv_probe+0x28/0x48 > [ 9.408122] [] driver_probe_device+0x101/0x234 > [ 9.409499] [] __driver_attach+0x7d/0x98 > [ 9.410809] [] bus_for_each_dev+0x30/0x5c > [ 9.412104] [] driver_attach+0x14/0x18 > [ 9.413385] [] bus_add_driver+0xc9/0x198 > [ 9.414686] [] driver_register+0x70/0xa0 > [ 9.416001] [] __platform_driver_register+0x24/0x28 > [ 9.417463] [] ethoc_driver_init+0x10/0x14 > [ 9.418824] [] do_one_initcall+0x80/0x1ac > [ 9.420083] [] kernel_init_freeable+0x131/0x198 > [ 9.421504] [] kernel_init+0xc/0xb0 > [ 9.422693] [] ret_from_kernel_thread+0x8/0xc >=20 > Bisect points to commit da47b4572056 ("phy: add support for a reset-g= pio > specification"). > Bisect log is attached. Reverting the patch fixes the problem. Aside from what you pointed out, this patch was still in dicussion when it got merged, since we got a concurrent patch from Sergei which tries to deal with the same kind of problem. Do you mind sending a revert, or I can do that first thing in the morni= ng. >=20 > I think there may be a number of problems, all of them exposed by the= patch > but really separate. >=20 > GPIOLIB is not configured in my test case, meaning gpiod_get_optional= () > returns -ENOSYS, and phy_probe() thus returns an error. Question here= is if > it is really appropriate for the XXX_optional() gpiolib functions to = return > an error if GPIOLIB is not configured. Either case, result is that pr= etty > much all phy registrations will now fail if GPIOLIB is not configured= =2E >=20 > Also, I suspect that there may be a bug in the error handling path > of ethoc_probe(). No idea what exactly is wrong, though. Other driver= s > use pretty much the same code sequence for mdio registration and asso= ciated > error handling. >=20 > Last but not least, something seems to be wrong with the use of dev_e= rr() > with &netdev->dev if register_netdev() has not yet been called. Maybe > someone > has some insight ? It all depends if SET_NETDEV_DEV() has had a chance to run, but in general it is kind of a bad idea to use netdev_* before the interface has been registered, since it won't have any valid name. --=20 =46lorian