[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aFJ95jZR6Cl_l7MJ@gaggiata.pivistrello.it>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 10:50:46 +0200
From: Francesco Dolcini <francesco@...cini.it>
To: Anusha Srivatsa <asrivats@...hat.com>
Cc: Francesco Dolcini <francesco@...cini.it>,
Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@...tlin.com>,
Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>,
Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>,
Jessica Zhang <quic_jesszhan@...cinc.com>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
regressions@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: drm/panel/panel-simple v6.16-rc1 WARNING regression
Hello Anusha,
On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 11:17:20AM -0500, Anusha Srivatsa wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 3:24 AM Francesco Dolcini <francesco@...cini.it>
> wrote:
>
> > Commit de04bb0089a9 ("drm/panel/panel-simple: Use the new allocation in
> > place of devm_kzalloc()")
> > from 6.16-rc1 introduced a regression with this warning during probe
> > with panel dpi described in the DT.
> >
> > A revert solves the issue.
> >
> > The issue is that connector_type is set to DRM_MODE_CONNECTOR_DPI in
> > panel_dpi_probe() that after that change is called after
> > devm_drm_panel_alloc().
> >
> > I am not sure if there are other implication for this change in the call
> > ordering, apart the one that triggers this warning.
> >
> > [ 12.089274] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> > [ 12.089303] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 96 at
> > drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/panel.c:377 devm_drm_of_get_bridge+0xac/0xb8
> > [ 12.130808] Modules linked in: v4l2_jpeg pwm_imx27(+) imx_vdoa
> > gpu_sched panel_simple imx6_media(C) imx_media_common
> > (C) videobuf2_dma_contig pwm_bl gpio_keys v4l2_mem2mem fuse ipv6 autofs4
> > [ 12.147774] CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 96 Comm: kworker/u8:3 Tainted: G
> > C 6.16.0-rc1+ #1 PREEMPT
> > [ 12.157446] Tainted: [C]=CRAP
> > [ 12.160418] Hardware name: Freescale i.MX6 Quad/DualLite (Device Tree)
> > [ 12.166953] Workqueue: events_unbound deferred_probe_work_func
> > [ 12.172805] Call trace:
> > [ 12.172815] unwind_backtrace from show_stack+0x10/0x14
> > [ 12.180598] show_stack from dump_stack_lvl+0x68/0x74
> > [ 12.185674] dump_stack_lvl from __warn+0x7c/0xe0
> > [ 12.190407] __warn from warn_slowpath_fmt+0x1b8/0x1c0
> > [ 12.195567] warn_slowpath_fmt from devm_drm_of_get_bridge+0xac/0xb8
> > [ 12.201949] devm_drm_of_get_bridge from imx_pd_probe+0x58/0x164
> > [ 12.207976] imx_pd_probe from platform_probe+0x5c/0xb0
> > [ 12.213220] platform_probe from really_probe+0xd0/0x3a4
> > [ 12.218551] really_probe from __driver_probe_device+0x8c/0x1d4
> > [ 12.224486] __driver_probe_device from driver_probe_device+0x30/0xc0
> > [ 12.230942] driver_probe_device from __device_attach_driver+0x98/0x10c
> > [ 12.237572] __device_attach_driver from bus_for_each_drv+0x90/0xe4
> > [ 12.243854] bus_for_each_drv from __device_attach+0xa8/0x1c8
> > [ 12.249614] __device_attach from bus_probe_device+0x88/0x8c
> > [ 12.255285] bus_probe_device from deferred_probe_work_func+0x8c/0xcc
> > [ 12.261739] deferred_probe_work_func from process_one_work+0x154/0x2dc
> > [ 12.268371] process_one_work from worker_thread+0x250/0x3f0
> > [ 12.274043] worker_thread from kthread+0x12c/0x24c
> > [ 12.278940] kthread from ret_from_fork+0x14/0x28
> > [ 12.283660] Exception stack(0xd0be9fb0 to 0xd0be9ff8)
> > [ 12.288720] 9fa0: 00000000 00000000
> > 00000000 00000000
> > [ 12.296906] 9fc0: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000
> > 00000000 00000000
> > [ 12.305089] 9fe0: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000013 00000000
> > [ 12.312050] ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
> >
> > #regzbot ^introduced: de04bb0089a96cc00d13b12cbf66a088befe3057
> >
> > Any advise?
> >
> > Hey Francesco!
>
> This mail reached my spam and I hadn't realised till today. Thanks for
> bringing this to attention.
>
> Thinking out loud here: If we called dpi_probe() before allocating the
> panel using devm_drm_panel_alloc()
> then we would have the connector type. But dpi_probe() needs the panel to
> be allocated....
>
> We could actually hardcode the connector type to DRM_MODE_CONNECTOR_DPI....
> Looking at panel_dpi_probe(), it guesses the connector_type:
>
> /* We do not know the connector for the DT node, so guess it
> */ desc->connector_type
> <https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.16-rc2/C/ident/connector_type> =
> DRM_MODE_CONNECTOR_DPI
> <https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.16-rc2/C/ident/DRM_MODE_CONNECTOR_DPI>;
>
>
> Reverting will improve the end user experience but if the fix can be quick,
> we can avoid dropping the change
I do not have any specific suggestion myself, my short term solution would be
to just send a revert. If you have some other proposal I am happy to test any
patch.
Francesco
Powered by blists - more mailing lists