| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 18:52:25 +0000
From: Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensource@...semi.com>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
CC: Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>,
Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Support Opensource <Support.Opensource@...semi.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] regmap: regmap-irq: silently ignore unsupported type
settings
Hi Geert,
On 04 January 2019 at 15:48, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> To: Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensource@...semi.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] regmap: regmap-irq: silently ignore unsupported type settings
>
> ()Hi Steve,
>
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 4:31 PM Steve Twiss
> <stwiss.opensource@...semi.com> wrote:
> > On 01 January 2019 @17:36, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] regmap: regmap-irq: silently ignore unsupported type settings
> > > On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 8:14 PM Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 12:13:32PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > > > > Geert, do you know if anyone vould to test this?
> > > > > Thanks, that seems to fix the issue with da9063-rtc.
> > > > > I don't know how to trigger an actual interrupt, though.
> > > > If it's a RTC does it have an alarm you can set?
> > > That's what I had expected, too, but there is no alarm file under
> > > /sys/class/rtc/.
> >
> > To communicate with the DA9063 RTC I am use ioctl function calls
> >
> > - RTC_SET_TIME
> > - RTC_RD_TIME
> > - RTC_ALM_SET
> > - RTC_ALM_READ
> > - RTC_AIE_ON
> > - RTC_AIE_OFF
> >
> > - https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/rtc.txt
> > - https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/tools/testing/selftests/rtc
> >
> > Although I don't use the test programs found in Linux, the ioctl calls I
> > make are shown in the Linux selftests. I believe that Alexandre Belloni
> > updated the RTC tests recently -- but I am not up to date with the latest.
> >
> > git show
> d8da8665e8e34c14f9b20fe3f21dff29b24cbf02:tools/testing/selftests/rtc/rtctest.c
Okay. So, I've got my own RTC tests which I wrote using the ioctl()
commands. I've not used the rtctest from the kernel before.
Also, I would need to look more closely to give you a better reply
for your results.
> root@...lsch:~# tools/testing/selftests/rtc/rtctest
> [==========] Running 5 tests from 2 test cases.
> [ RUN ] rtc.date_read
> rtctest.c:49:rtc.date_read:Current RTC date/time is 04/01/2019 14:44:25.
> [ OK ] rtc.date_read
> [ RUN ] rtc.uie_read
> [ OK ] rtc.uie_read
> [ RUN ] rtc.uie_select
> rtctest.c:98:rtc.uie_select:Expected 0 (0) != rc (0)
> rtc.uie_select: Test terminated by assertion
> [ FAIL ] rtc.uie_select
> [ RUN ] rtc.alarm_alm_set
> rtctest.c:137:rtc.alarm_alm_set:Alarm time now set to 14:47:23.
> rtctest.c:148:rtc.alarm_alm_set:Expected 0 (0) != rc (0)
> rtc.alarm_alm_set: Test failed at step #5
> [ FAIL ] rtc.alarm_alm_set
> [ RUN ] rtc.alarm_wkalm_set
> rtctest.c:198:rtc.alarm_wkalm_set:Alarm time now set to 04/01/2019 14:47:28.
> rtctest.c:205:rtc.alarm_wkalm_set:Expected 0 (0) != rc (0)
> rtctest.c:214:rtc.alarm_wkalm_set:Expected new (1546613934) == secs
> (1546613248)
> rtc.alarm_wkalm_set: Test terminated by assertion
> [ FAIL ] rtc.alarm_wkalm_set
> [==========] 2 / 5 tests passed.
> [ FAILED ]
> root@...lsch:~#
>
> No interrupt fired, as witnessed by /proc/interrupts, and the pr_info()
> I had added to da9063_alarm_event().
>
> Note that rtctest behaves the same before the regmap irq breakage,
> so this is not a recent regression...
I've just incrementally rebased from v4.18 through to v4.20 and I see the
IRQ working for the DA9063 alarm on my test system. I've not applied any extra
patches and the results below are for the following vanilla kernels: v4.18,
v4.19, v4.20.
The next results are only for regressions in the RTC alarm for the DA9063. I
only ran one simple "TEST" to create an output for you (although I did it twice
to produce two IRQs):
--- 8< ---
v4.18
-----
> cat *.res
[PASS] Set RTC alarms functional test for TEST with DA9063-TEST
[PASS] Setting test type to use RTC alarm functional test for TEST with DA9063-TEST
[PASS] Running set alarm tests for RTC { 1 }
[PASS] Running test for test_rtc_prog_set_simple_alarm_seconds()
[PASS] Setting the current date and time from the da9063-rtc as 2000-01-01 00:00:00
[PASS] Setting the alarm date and time from the da9063-rtc as 2000-01-01 00:00:05 (+5 secs into the future)
[PASS] Setting the listener on da9063-rtc then waiting for elapsed timeout of 15 seconds...
[PASS] The alarm was triggered on da9063-rtc within the expected time and the alarm happened at 2000-01-01 00:00:05
[PASS] Running test for test_rtc_prog_set_simple_alarm_seconds()
[PASS] Setting the current date and time from the da9063-rtc as 2000-01-01 00:00:00
[PASS] Setting the alarm date and time from the da9063-rtc as 2000-01-01 00:00:15 (+15 secs into the future)
[PASS] Setting the listener on da9063-rtc then waiting for elapsed timeout of 25 seconds...
[PASS] The alarm was triggered on da9063-rtc within the expected time and the alarm happened at 2000-01-01 00:00:15
[PASS] Finished running DA9063 set alarm tests for RTC { 1 } on TEST
> cat /proc/interrupts | grep da9063
249: 2 0 0 0 gpio-mxc 11 Level da9063-irq
302: 0 0 0 0 da9063-irq 0 Level ONKEY
303: 0 0 2 0 da9063-irq 1 Level ALARM
310: 0 0 0 0 da9063-irq 8 Level LDO_LIM
> uname -a
Linux test 4.18.0 #1 SMP Mon Jan 7 16:25:37 GMT 2019 armv7l GNU/Linux
v4.19
-----
> cat *.res
[PASS] Set RTC alarms functional test for TEST with DA9063-TEST
[PASS] Setting test type to use RTC alarm functional test for TEST with DA9063-TEST
[PASS] Running set alarm tests for RTC { 1 }
[PASS] Running test for test_rtc_prog_set_simple_alarm_seconds()
[PASS] Setting the current date and time from the da9063-rtc as 2000-01-01 00:00:00
[PASS] Setting the alarm date and time from the da9063-rtc as 2000-01-01 00:00:05 (+5 secs into the future)
[PASS] Setting the listener on da9063-rtc then waiting for elapsed timeout of 15 seconds...
[PASS] The alarm was triggered on da9063-rtc within the expected time and the alarm happened at 2000-01-01 00:00:05
[PASS] Running test for test_rtc_prog_set_simple_alarm_seconds()
[PASS] Setting the current date and time from the da9063-rtc as 2000-01-01 00:00:00
[PASS] Setting the alarm date and time from the da9063-rtc as 2000-01-01 00:00:15 (+15 secs into the future)
[PASS] Setting the listener on da9063-rtc then waiting for elapsed timeout of 25 seconds...
[PASS] The alarm was triggered on da9063-rtc within the expected time and the alarm happened at 2000-01-01 00:00:15
[PASS] Finished running DA9063 set alarm tests for RTC { 1 } on TEST
> cat /proc/interrupts | grep da9063
249: 2 0 0 0 gpio-mxc 11 Level da9063-irq
302: 0 0 0 0 da9063-irq 0 Level ONKEY
303: 0 0 0 2 da9063-irq 1 Level ALARM
310: 0 0 0 0 da9063-irq 8 Level LDO_LIM
> uname -a
Linux test 4.19.0 #1 SMP Mon Jan 7 17:34:43 GMT 2019 armv7l GNU/Linux
v4.20
-----
> cat *.res
[PASS] Set RTC alarms functional test for TEST with DA9063-TEST
[PASS] Setting test type to use RTC alarm functional test for TEST with DA9063-TEST
[PASS] Running set alarm tests for RTC { 1 }
[PASS] Running test for test_rtc_prog_set_simple_alarm_seconds()
[PASS] Setting the current date and time from the da9063-rtc as 2000-01-01 00:00:00
[PASS] Setting the alarm date and time from the da9063-rtc as 2000-01-01 00:00:05 (+5 secs into the future)
[PASS] Setting the listener on da9063-rtc then waiting for elapsed timeout of 15 seconds...
[PASS] The alarm was triggered on da9063-rtc within the expected time and the alarm happened at 2000-01-01 00:00:05
[PASS] Running test for test_rtc_prog_set_simple_alarm_seconds()
[PASS] Setting the current date and time from the da9063-rtc as 2000-01-01 00:00:00
[PASS] Setting the alarm date and time from the da9063-rtc as 2000-01-01 00:00:15 (+15 secs into the future)
[PASS] Setting the listener on da9063-rtc then waiting for elapsed timeout of 25 seconds...
[PASS] The alarm was triggered on da9063-rtc within the expected time and the alarm happened at 2000-01-01 00:00:15
[PASS] Finished running DA9063 set alarm tests for RTC { 1 } on TEST
> cat /proc/interrupts | grep da9063
249: 2 0 0 0 gpio-mxc 11 Level da9063-irq
302: 0 0 0 0 da9063-irq 0 Level ONKEY
303: 0 0 2 0 da9063-irq 1 Level ALARM
310: 0 0 0 0 da9063-irq 8 Level LDO_LIM
> uname -a
Linux test 4.20.0 #1 SMP Mon Jan 7 17:46:59 GMT 2019 armv7l GNU/Linux
--- 8< ---
So, with these results, I don't think this is a regression going back very far.
But when I get to vanilla v5.0-rc1, there are lots of IRQ failures, so I can't
test because nothing gets loaded. All of the IRQs in each of the DA9063
MFD cells are failing, not just for the RTC. I get the following from the
console logs for v5.0-rc1 ...
da9063 1-0058: Device detected (chip-ID: 0x61, var-ID: 0x60)
genirq: Setting trigger mode 8 for irq 310 failed (regmap_irq_set_type+0x0/0x164)
da9063-regulators da9063-regulators: Failed to request LDO_LIM IRQ.
da9063-regulators: probe of da9063-regulators failed with error -524
[...]
da9063-onkey da9063-onkey: DMA mask not set
genirq: Setting trigger mode 8 for irq 302 failed (regmap_irq_set_type+0x0/0x164)
da9063-onkey da9063-onkey: Failed to request IRQ 302: -524
da9063-onkey: probe of da9063-onkey failed with error -524
da9063-rtc da9063-rtc: DMA mask not set
da9063-rtc da9063-rtc: registered as rtc0
genirq: Setting trigger mode 8 for irq 303 failed (regmap_irq_set_type+0x0/0x164)
da9063-rtc da9063-rtc: Failed to request ALARM IRQ 303: -524
da9063-rtc: probe of da9063-rtc failed with error -524
[...]
da9063-watchdog da9063-watchdog: DMA mask not set
I'll test the proposed fix tomorrow.
Regards,
Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists