linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] mfd: axp20x: AXP717: Fix missing IRQ status registers range

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240613120420.GO1504919@google.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 13:04:20 +0100
From: Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>
To: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>
Cc: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>, Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-sunxi@...ts.linux.dev,
	Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>,
	Samuel Holland <samuel@...lland.org>,
	Ryan Walklin <ryan@...ttoast.com>,
	Chris Morgan <macroalpha82@...il.com>,
	Philippe Simons <simons.philippe@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] mfd: axp20x: AXP717: Fix missing IRQ status
 registers range

On Thu, 13 Jun 2024, Andre Przywara wrote:

> Hi Lee,
> 
> On 12/06/2024 16:48, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Jun 2024, Andre Przywara wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > On 12/06/2024 16:25, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 12 Jun 2024, Andre Przywara wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Hi Lee,
> > > > > 
> > > > > On 02/05/2024 10:39, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, 18 Apr 2024, Andre Przywara wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > While we list the "IRQ status *and acknowledge*" registers as volatile,
> > > > > > > they are missing from the writable range array, so acknowledging any
> > > > > > > interrupts was met with an -EIO error.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Add the five registers that hold those bits to the writable array.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Fixes: b5bfc8ab2484 ("mfd: axp20x: Add support for AXP717 PMIC")
> > > > > > > Reported-by: Chris Morgan <macromorgan@...mail.com>
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > >     drivers/mfd/axp20x.c | 1 +
> > > > > > >     1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>
> > > > > 
> > > > > Can you please take just this patch as a fix for 6.10? This fixes the power
> > > > > key operation.
> > > > > This applies cleanly on top of v6.10-rc3, so there is no need for any extra
> > > > > immutable branch or coordination with regulator.
> > > > > (The same is true independently for patch 2/5, on the regulator side).
> > > > 
> > > > What does the Fixes: commit break?
> > > > 
> > > > Or is it the case that it never worked properly?
> > > 
> > > The interrupt part never worked properly, but so far that's only needed for
> > > the power key operation. Unfortunately that part wasn't tested properly
> > > initially, so the patches were merged into your tree before that.
> > 
> > This doesn't sounds like a -fixes candidate.  I'll mark the set for v6.11.
> 
> Sorry, correction, this patch missing is actually fatal now, since we have
> an interrupt connected in the DT (which wasn't there initially). The code
> tries to clear all IRQs upon driver probe, which fails due to regmap
> error-ing out. This makes the whole driver fail probing, and since the AXP
> supplies basically every peripheral, the system is dead in the water:
> 
> [    1.173014] sunxi-rsb 7083000.rsb: RSB running at 3000000 Hz
> [    1.174996] axp20x-rsb sunxi-rsb-3a3: AXP20x variant AXP717 found
> [    1.198931] axp20x-rsb sunxi-rsb-3a3: Failed to ack 0x49: -5
> [    1.220878] axp20x-rsb sunxi-rsb-3a3: failed to add irq chip: -5
> [    1.235760] axp20x-rsb sunxi-rsb-3a3:
> 
> (Thanks to loki666@IRC for providing the log!)
> 
> This was discovered early, long before the merge window, and I was actually
> hoping to have this patch squashed into the original series still, but there
> was this immutable branch already.
> 
> So can you please take this as a fix for 6.10?

Please draft a new patch (the diff is likely to be the same) with an
updated commit message describing the new problem and why it's required
for -fixes.  I'll then submit it to Linus.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]