[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C40218A.4090806@canonical.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:08:26 +0100
From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...onical.com>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Stop ARM boards crashing when CUPS is loaded - 2.6.35-rc5
On 15/07/10 21:06, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 01:02:14PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> BugLink: http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/601226
>>>
>>> When CUPS loads, it tries to load several drivers that it may need.
>>> When one of these drivers, specifically parport_pc is loaded on ARM
>>> based systems, it causes a segmentation fault as the ISA addresses
>>> which are attempted are not writable on non-PC based architectures.
>>> This code prevents ISA addresses from being attempted except on x86.
>>>
>>
>> That sounds like a pretty serious problem. But presumably it isn't -
>> otherwise it would have been fixed earlier!
Well it is a problem on OMAP based boards.
I've personally tested it on OMAP3 and OMAP4 based machines.
Perhaps the memory is not reserved correctly.
>> So what actions are required to trigger this bug and why aren't others
>> seeing it?
Probably because most other chips either manage to reserve the memory
successfully, or do not attempt to load the parport_pc driver, either as
a module or built-in.
All I have to do to recreate this bug is load the module or build in the
parport_pc driver.
> Note that we have machines which have ISA parallel ports, so it's not
> this simple.
Do they have ISA parallel ports, or do they just pretend to?
I found this scattered about:
/*
* We don't actually have real ISA nor PCI buses, but there is so many
* drivers out there that might just work if we fake them...
*/
Clearly parport_pc isn't one of them. :)
> Why not just avoid selecting and building parport_pc on these machines?
> I mean, the Beagleboard doesn't have PCI nor ISA, so why is parport_pc
> being built for production use?
I am happy to make a Kconfig change to disallow OMAP builds from building
the parport_pc driver. Do you think this would be more sensible?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists