| 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: Tue, 5 Jul 2022 14:00:05 -0700
From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To: Cyril Brulebois <kibi@...ian.org>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc: Jim Quinlan <jim2101024@...il.com>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenz@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com, james.quinlan@...adcom.com,
Krzysztof Wilczyński <kw@...ux.com>,
"moderated list:BROADCOM BCM2711/BCM2835 ARM ARCHITECTURE"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"moderated list:BROADCOM BCM2711/BCM2835 ARM ARCHITECTURE"
<linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/4] PCI: brcmstb: Re-submit reverted patchset
On 7/5/22 13:55, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com> (2022-07-01):
>> On 7/1/22 09:27, Jim Quinlan wrote:
>>> A submission [1] was made to enable a PCIe root port to turn on regulators
>>> for downstream devices. It was accepted. Months later, a regression was
>>> discovered on an RPi CM4 [2]. The patchset was reverted [3] as the fix
>>> came too late in the release cycle. The regression in question is
>>> triggered only when the PCIe RC DT node has no root port subnode, which is
>>> a perfectly reasonsable configuration.
>>>
>>> The original commits are now being resubmitted with some modifications to
>>> fix the regression. The modifcations on the original commits are
>>> described below (the SHA is that of the original commit):
>>>
>>> [830aa6f29f07 PCI: brcmstb: Split brcm_pcie_setup() into two funcs]
>>> NOTE: In the originally submitted patchset, this commit introduced a
>>> regression that was corrected by a subsequent commit in the same
>>> patchset. Let's not do this again.
>>>
>>> @@ -1411,6 +1411,10 @@ static int brcm_pcie_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> if (ret)
>>> goto fail;
>>>
>>> + ret = brcm_pcie_linkup(pcie);
>>> + if (ret)
>>> + goto fail;
>>>
>>>
>>> [67211aadcb4b PCI: brcmstb: Add mechanism to turn on subdev regulators]
>>> NOTE: Not related to the regression, the regulators must be freed whenever
>>> the PCIe tree is dismantled:
>>>
>>> @@ -507,6 +507,7 @@ static void pci_subdev_regulators_remove_bus(struct pci_bus *bus)
>>>
>>> if (regulator_bulk_disable(sr->num_supplies, sr->supplies))
>>> dev_err(dev, "failed to disable regulators for downstream device\n");
>>> + regulator_bulk_free(sr->num_supplies, sr->supplies);
>>> dev->driver_data = NULL;
>>>
>>>
>>> [93e41f3fca3d PCI: brcmstb: Add control of subdevice voltage regulators]
>>> NOTE: If the PCIe RC DT node was missing a Root Port subnode, the PCIe
>>> link-up was skipped. This is the regression. Fix it by attempting
>>> link-up even if the Root Port DT subnode is missing.
>>>
>>> @@ -503,11 +503,10 @@ static int pci_subdev_regulators_add_bus(struct pci_bus *bus)
>>>
>>> static int brcm_pcie_add_bus(struct pci_bus *bus)
>>> {
>>> - struct device *dev = &bus->dev;
>>> struct brcm_pcie *pcie = (struct brcm_pcie *) bus->sysdata;
>>> int ret;
>>>
>>> - if (!dev->of_node || !bus->parent || !pci_is_root_bus(bus->parent))
>>> + if (!bus->parent || !pci_is_root_bus(bus->parent))
>>> return 0;
>>>
>>> ret = pci_subdev_regulators_add_bus(bus);
>>>
>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220106160332.2143-1-jim2101024@gmail.com
>>> [2] https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215925
>>> [3] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20220511201856.808690-1-helgaas@kernel.org/
>>
>> On a Raspberry Pi 4B:
>>
>> Tested-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
>
> As it stands, CM4 support in master is less than ideal: the mmc issues
> I've mentioned in some earlier discussion are making it very hard to
> draw any definitive conclusions. Soft reboots or cold boots don't seem
> to make a difference: the storage might not show up at all, leading to
> getting dropped into an initramfs shell, or it might show up but further
> accesses can be delayed so much that the system proceeds to booting but
> very slowly, and it might even lead to getting dropped into some
> emergency/maintenance mode.
>
> This affects both the CM4 Lite variant (no internal storage = SD card in
> the CM4 IO slot) and some CM4 non-Lite variant (with internal storage),
> with messages like this one getting repeated:
>
> [ 310.105020] mmc0: Timeout waiting for hardware cmd interrupt.
> [ 310.110864] mmc0: sdhci: ============ SDHCI REGISTER DUMP ===========
> [ 310.117390] mmc0: sdhci: Sys addr: 0x00000000 | Version: 0x00009902
> [ 310.123918] mmc0: sdhci: Blk size: 0x00000000 | Blk cnt: 0x00000000
> [ 310.130445] mmc0: sdhci: Argument: 0x000001aa | Trn mode: 0x00000000
> [ 310.136971] mmc0: sdhci: Present: 0x01ff0001 | Host ctl: 0x00000001
> [ 310.143496] mmc0: sdhci: Power: 0x0000000f | Blk gap: 0x00000000
> [ 310.150021] mmc0: sdhci: Wake-up: 0x00000000 | Clock: 0x00007187
> [ 310.156548] mmc0: sdhci: Timeout: 0x00000000 | Int stat: 0x00018000
> [ 310.163074] mmc0: sdhci: Int enab: 0x00ff0003 | Sig enab: 0x00ff0003
> [ 310.169600] mmc0: sdhci: ACmd stat: 0x00000000 | Slot int: 0x00000001
> [ 310.176126] mmc0: sdhci: Caps: 0x00000000 | Caps_1: 0x00000000
> [ 310.182652] mmc0: sdhci: Cmd: 0x0000081a | Max curr: 0x00000001
> [ 310.189178] mmc0: sdhci: Resp[0]: 0x00000000 | Resp[1]: 0x00000000
> [ 310.195704] mmc0: sdhci: Resp[2]: 0x00000000 | Resp[3]: 0x00000000
> [ 310.202230] mmc0: sdhci: Host ctl2: 0x00000000
> [ 310.206728] mmc0: sdhci: ============================================
>
> That happens with current master (v5.19-rc5-56-ge35e5b6f695d2), with or
> without this patchset.
>
> That being said, I'm not able to reproduce the showstopper regression
> that I reported against the initial patchset (booting was breaking in
> the very first few seconds), so I suppose it's fine to propose the
> following even if that's somewhat tainted by those mmc issues.
Any chance you can bisect the eMMC issues so we can investigate those
separately? Thanks!
>
>
> With Raspberry Pi CM4 (Lite and non-Lite), mounted on a CM4 IO Board:
> - with a PCIe to quad-USB board, USB storage and USB keyboard;
> - without anything in the PCIe slot.
>
> Tested-by: Cyril Brulebois <cyril@...amax.com>
Thanks!
--
Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists