[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ed4db18f-5590-40a6-adbe-53062d0f382b@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 15:01:48 +0200
From: Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
To: Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@....com>, "V, Narasimhan"
<Narasimhan.V@....com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
Jan Dabros <jsd@...ihalf.com>, Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>,
"Limonciello, Mario" <Mario.Limonciello@....com>
Subject: Re: i2c-designware: NULL ptr at RIP: 0010:regmap_read+0x12/0x70
Hi
On 1/11/24 00:56, Kim Phillips wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 1/9/24 4:11 AM, Jarkko Nikula wrote> On 1/9/24 09:56, V, Narasimhan
> wrote:
>>> * Looks like the issue is with this below commit:
>>> * i2c: designware: Fix lock probe call order in dw_i2c_plat_probe()
>>>
>> Hmm... This makes me even more confused since your device AMDI0010
>> should not even use the access semaphore.
>>
>> So linux-next works if you run a commit before it or revert these
>> three patches? (commit 2f571a725434 ("i2c: designware: Fix lock probe
>> call order in dw_i2c_plat_probe()") doesn't revert without reverting
>> two other related commits after it)
>>
>> git show f9b51f600217b38f46ea39d6aa445e594bf3eb30 |patch -p1 -R
>> git show b8034c7d28a988be82efbf4d65faa847334811f7 |patch -p1 -R
>> git show 2f571a72543463ef07dc3ac61e7b703b9ad997f9 |patch -p1 -R
>
> Narasimhan is right, if I check out, build and boot this commit:
>
> 2f571a725434 i2c: designware: Fix lock probe call order in
> dw_i2c_plat_probe()
>
> I get the same stacktrace on the serial console.
>
> If I try the previous commit (174a0c565cea "efi/loongarch: Directly
> position the loaded image file"),
> the system boots fine.
>
> The same thing happens with the three reversions above:
> next-20240110 gets the stacktrace, but with the three
> reversions, it doesn't.
>
Thanks, I just sent a fix reverting those commits.
> Is your parallel post probe runtime suspending time window
> theory no longer applicable? These AMD EPYC systems have a
> lot more cores than their client equivalents, and AMD power
> management code has had a lot of improvements lately.
>
It still a mystery to me but I let Andy to figure out it if he wants to
during next development cycle :-)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists