[PATCH] serial: cpm_uart: call cpm_muram_init before registering console

[PATCH] serial: cpm_uart: call cpm_muram_init before registering console

[Rasmus Villemoes]

Christophe reports that powerpc 8xx silently fails to 5.6-rc1. It turns
out I was wrong about nobody relying on the lazy initialization of the
cpm/qe muram in commit b6231ea2b3c6 (soc: fsl: qe: drop broken lazy
call of cpm_muram_init()).

Rather than reinstating the somewhat dubious lazy call (initializing a
currently held spinlock, and implicitly doing a GFP_KERNEL under that
spinlock), make sure that cpm_muram_init() is called early enough - I
thought the calls from the subsys_initcalls were good enough, but when
used by console drivers, that's obviously not the
case. cpm_muram_init() is safe to call twice (there's an early return
if it is already initialized), so keep the call from cpm_init() - in
case SERIAL_CPM_CONSOLE=n.

Reported-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
Fixes: b6231ea2b3c6 (soc: fsl: qe: drop broken lazy call of cpm_muram_init())
Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
---

Christophe, can I get you to add a formal Tested-by?

I'm not sure which tree this should go through.

 drivers/tty/serial/cpm_uart/cpm_uart_core.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/cpm_uart/cpm_uart_core.c b/drivers/tty/serial/cpm_uart/cpm_uart_core.c
index 19d5a4cf29a6..d4b81b06e0cb 100644
--- a/drivers/tty/serial/cpm_uart/cpm_uart_core.c
+++ b/drivers/tty/serial/cpm_uart/cpm_uart_core.c
@@ -1373,6 +1373,7 @@ static struct console cpm_scc_uart_console = {
 
 static int __init cpm_uart_console_init(void)
 {
+	cpm_muram_init();
 	register_console(&cpm_scc_uart_console);
 	return 0;
 }
-- 
2.23.0

Re: [PATCH] serial: cpm_uart: call cpm_muram_init before registering console

[Christophe Leroy]

Le 13/02/2020 à 12:43, Rasmus Villemoes a écrit :
> Christophe reports that powerpc 8xx silently fails to 5.6-rc1. It turns
> out I was wrong about nobody relying on the lazy initialization of the
> cpm/qe muram in commit b6231ea2b3c6 (soc: fsl: qe: drop broken lazy
> call of cpm_muram_init()).
> 
> Rather than reinstating the somewhat dubious lazy call (initializing a
> currently held spinlock, and implicitly doing a GFP_KERNEL under that
> spinlock), make sure that cpm_muram_init() is called early enough - I
> thought the calls from the subsys_initcalls were good enough, but when
> used by console drivers, that's obviously not the
> case. cpm_muram_init() is safe to call twice (there's an early return
> if it is already initialized), so keep the call from cpm_init() - in
> case SERIAL_CPM_CONSOLE=n.
> 
> Reported-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
> Fixes: b6231ea2b3c6 (soc: fsl: qe: drop broken lazy call of cpm_muram_init())
> Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>

Tested-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>

> ---
> 
> Christophe, can I get you to add a formal Tested-by?
> 
> I'm not sure which tree this should go through.
> 
>   drivers/tty/serial/cpm_uart/cpm_uart_core.c | 1 +
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/cpm_uart/cpm_uart_core.c b/drivers/tty/serial/cpm_uart/cpm_uart_core.c
> index 19d5a4cf29a6..d4b81b06e0cb 100644
> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/cpm_uart/cpm_uart_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/cpm_uart/cpm_uart_core.c
> @@ -1373,6 +1373,7 @@ static struct console cpm_scc_uart_console = {
>   
>   static int __init cpm_uart_console_init(void)
>   {
> +	cpm_muram_init();
>   	register_console(&cpm_scc_uart_console);
>   	return 0;
>   }
> 

Re: [PATCH] serial: cpm_uart: call cpm_muram_init before registering console

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 12:43:42PM +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> Christophe reports that powerpc 8xx silently fails to 5.6-rc1. It turns
> out I was wrong about nobody relying on the lazy initialization of the
> cpm/qe muram in commit b6231ea2b3c6 (soc: fsl: qe: drop broken lazy
> call of cpm_muram_init()).
> 
> Rather than reinstating the somewhat dubious lazy call (initializing a
> currently held spinlock, and implicitly doing a GFP_KERNEL under that
> spinlock), make sure that cpm_muram_init() is called early enough - I
> thought the calls from the subsys_initcalls were good enough, but when
> used by console drivers, that's obviously not the
> case. cpm_muram_init() is safe to call twice (there's an early return
> if it is already initialized), so keep the call from cpm_init() - in
> case SERIAL_CPM_CONSOLE=n.
> 
> Reported-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
> Fixes: b6231ea2b3c6 (soc: fsl: qe: drop broken lazy call of cpm_muram_init())
> Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
> ---
> 
> Christophe, can I get you to add a formal Tested-by?
> 
> I'm not sure which tree this should go through.

I can take it, thanks.

greg k-h

RE: [PATCH] serial: cpm_uart: call cpm_muram_init before registering console

[Leo Li]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2020 5:44 AM
> To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>; Jiri Slaby
> <jslaby@suse.com>; Timur Tabi <timur@kernel.org>; Leo Li
> <leoyang.li@nxp.com>; Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
> Cc: Qiang Zhao <qiang.zhao@nxp.com>; linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org; Scott
> Wood <oss@buserror.net>; Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>;
> linux-serial@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: [PATCH] serial: cpm_uart: call cpm_muram_init before registering
> console
> 
> Christophe reports that powerpc 8xx silently fails to 5.6-rc1. It turns out I was
> wrong about nobody relying on the lazy initialization of the cpm/qe muram in
> commit b6231ea2b3c6 (soc: fsl: qe: drop broken lazy call of
> cpm_muram_init()).
> 
> Rather than reinstating the somewhat dubious lazy call (initializing a currently
> held spinlock, and implicitly doing a GFP_KERNEL under that spinlock), make
> sure that cpm_muram_init() is called early enough - I thought the calls from
> the subsys_initcalls were good enough, but when used by console drivers,
> that's obviously not the case. cpm_muram_init() is safe to call twice (there's
> an early return if it is already initialized), so keep the call from cpm_init() - in
> case SERIAL_CPM_CONSOLE=n.
> 
> Reported-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
> Fixes: b6231ea2b3c6 (soc: fsl: qe: drop broken lazy call of cpm_muram_init())
> Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>

Acked-by: Li Yang <leoyang.li@nxp.com>

> ---
> 
> Christophe, can I get you to add a formal Tested-by?
> 
> I'm not sure which tree this should go through.
> 
>  drivers/tty/serial/cpm_uart/cpm_uart_core.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/cpm_uart/cpm_uart_core.c
> b/drivers/tty/serial/cpm_uart/cpm_uart_core.c
> index 19d5a4cf29a6..d4b81b06e0cb 100644
> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/cpm_uart/cpm_uart_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/cpm_uart/cpm_uart_core.c
> @@ -1373,6 +1373,7 @@ static struct console cpm_scc_uart_console = {
> 
>  static int __init cpm_uart_console_init(void)  {
> +	cpm_muram_init();
>  	register_console(&cpm_scc_uart_console);
>  	return 0;
>  }
> --
> 2.23.0