| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <4323375.xCQYxFPVKo@debian64>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 17:57:11 +0100
From: Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@...il.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
Sven Eckelmann <sven.eckelmann@...nmesh.com>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Amit Pundir <amit.pundir@...aro.org>,
Andy Gross <andy.gross@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.14 62/62] pinctrl: msm: fix gpio-hog related boot issues
On Monday, February 18, 2019 2:44:08 PM CET Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> 4.14-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
>
Wait! There's a problem! This patch "alone" is not enough to fix "the gpio-hog
kills system" bug. The series also included the necessary dts change:
"[v6,2/2] ARM: dts: qcom: add gpio-ranges property"
<https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10432105/>
This patch is still set to "Awaiting upstream". But, from what I can tell
"linux-arm-msm" is the upstream, right?
Anyway we had this discussion before:
<https://www.spinics.net/lists/stable-commits/msg95383.html>
But I don't have a long enough "poking tool" you speak of to do
anything about it.
So @Amit / @greg : can you please poke Andy about it?
Note 2:
The series also included a dt-binding patch:
"[v6,1/2] dt-bindings: pinctrl: qcom: add gpio-ranges, gpio-reserved-ranges"
<https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10431593/>
which made its way (with the same changes as the 2/2 patch) upstream.
commit c1e802f68ca0 ("dt-bindings: pinctrl: qcom: add gpio-ranges, gpio-reserved-ranges")
Cheers,
Christian
> ------------------
>
> From: Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@...il.com>
>
> commit a86caa9ba5d70696ceb35d1d39caa20d8b641387 upstream.
>
> Sven Eckelmann reported an issue with the current IPQ4019 pinctrl.
> Setting up any gpio-hog in the device-tree for his device would
> "kill the bootup completely":
>
> | [ 0.477838] msm_serial 78af000.serial: could not find pctldev for node /soc/pinctrl@...0000/serial_pinmux, deferring probe
> | [ 0.499828] spi_qup 78b5000.spi: could not find pctldev for node /soc/pinctrl@...0000/spi_0_pinmux, deferring probe
> | [ 1.298883] requesting hog GPIO enable USB2 power (chip 1000000.pinctrl, offset 58) failed, -517
> | [ 1.299609] gpiochip_add_data: GPIOs 0..99 (1000000.pinctrl) failed to register
> | [ 1.308589] ipq4019-pinctrl 1000000.pinctrl: Failed register gpiochip
> | [ 1.316586] msm_serial 78af000.serial: could not find pctldev for node /soc/pinctrl@...0000/serial_pinmux, deferring probe
> | [ 1.322415] spi_qup 78b5000.spi: could not find pctldev for node /soc/pinctrl@...0000/spi_0_pinmux, deferri
>
> This was also verified on a RT-AC58U (IPQ4018) which would
> no longer boot, if a gpio-hog was specified. (Tried forcing
> the USB LED PIN (GPIO0) to high.).
>
> The problem is that Pinctrl+GPIO registration is currently
> peformed in the following order in pinctrl-msm.c:
> 1. pinctrl_register()
> 2. gpiochip_add()
> 3. gpiochip_add_pin_range()
>
> The actual error code -517 == -EPROBE_DEFER is coming from
> pinctrl_get_device_gpio_range(), which is called through:
> gpiochip_add
> of_gpiochip_add
> of_gpiochip_scan_gpios
> gpiod_hog
> gpiochip_request_own_desc
> __gpiod_request
> chip->request
> gpiochip_generic_request
> pinctrl_gpio_request
> pinctrl_get_device_gpio_range
>
> pinctrl_get_device_gpio_range() is unable to find any valid
> pin ranges, since nothing has been added to the pinctrldev_list yet.
> so the range can't be found, and the operation fails with -EPROBE_DEFER.
>
> This patch fixes the issue by adding the "gpio-ranges" property to
> the pinctrl device node of all upstream Qcom SoC. The pin ranges are
> then added by the gpio core.
>
> In order to remain compatible with older, existing DTs (and ACPI)
> a check for the "gpio-ranges" property has been added to
> msm_gpio_init(). This prevents the driver of adding the same entry
> to the pinctrldev_list twice.
>
> Reported-by: Sven Eckelmann <sven.eckelmann@...nmesh.com>
> Tested-by: Sven Eckelmann <sven.eckelmann@...nmesh.com> [ipq4019]
> Reviewed-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Amit Pundir <amit.pundir@...aro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
>
> ---
> drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c
> @@ -839,11 +839,24 @@ static int msm_gpio_init(struct msm_pinc
> return ret;
> }
>
> - ret = gpiochip_add_pin_range(&pctrl->chip, dev_name(pctrl->dev), 0, 0, chip->ngpio);
> - if (ret) {
> - dev_err(pctrl->dev, "Failed to add pin range\n");
> - gpiochip_remove(&pctrl->chip);
> - return ret;
> + /*
> + * For DeviceTree-supported systems, the gpio core checks the
> + * pinctrl's device node for the "gpio-ranges" property.
> + * If it is present, it takes care of adding the pin ranges
> + * for the driver. In this case the driver can skip ahead.
> + *
> + * In order to remain compatible with older, existing DeviceTree
> + * files which don't set the "gpio-ranges" property or systems that
> + * utilize ACPI the driver has to call gpiochip_add_pin_range().
> + */
> + if (!of_property_read_bool(pctrl->dev->of_node, "gpio-ranges")) {
> + ret = gpiochip_add_pin_range(&pctrl->chip,
> + dev_name(pctrl->dev), 0, 0, chip->ngpio);
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err(pctrl->dev, "Failed to add pin range\n");
> + gpiochip_remove(&pctrl->chip);
> + return ret;
> + }
> }
>
> ret = gpiochip_irqchip_add(chip,
>
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists