Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [Regression 5.6-rc1][Bisected b6231ea2b3c6] Powerpc 8xx doesn't
 boot anymore
To:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>,
        Li Yang <leoyang.li@nxp.com>, Qiang Zhao <qiang.zhao@nxp.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
        Scott Wood <oss@buserror.net>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <0d45fa64-51ee-0052-cb34-58c770c5b3ce@c-s.fr>
From:   Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Message-ID: <f67f7566-24f2-9c71-36be-2e55ec436097@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Date:   Thu, 13 Feb 2020 08:45:28 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.4.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0d45fa64-51ee-0052-cb34-58c770c5b3ce@c-s.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 12/02/2020 15.24, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> Hi Rasmus,
> 
> Kernel 5.6-rc1 silently fails on boot.
> 
> I bisected the problem to commit b6231ea2b3c6 ("soc: fsl: qe: drop
> broken lazy call of cpm_muram_init()")
> 
> I get a bad_page_fault() for an access at address 8 in
> cpm_muram_alloc_common(), called from cpm_uart_console_setup() via
> cpm_uart_allocbuf()

Sorry about that. But I'm afraid I don't see what I could have done
differently - the patch series, including b6231ea2b3c6, has been in
-next since 20191210, both you and ppc-dev were cc'ed on the entire
series (last revision sent November 28). And I've been dogfooding the
patches on both arm- and ppc-derived boards ever since (but obviously
only for a few cpus).

> Reverting the guilty commit on top of 5.6-rc1 is not trivial.
> 
> In your commit text you explain that cpm_muram_init() is called via
> subsys_initcall. But console init is done before that, so it cannot work.

No, but neither did the code I removed seem to work - how does doing
spin_lock_init on a held spinlock, and then unlocking it, work? Is
everything-spinlock always a no-op in your configuration? And even so,
I'd think a GFP_KERNEL allocation under spin_lock_irqsave() would
trigger some splat somewhere?

Please note I'm not claiming my patch is not at fault, it clearly is, I
just want to try to understand how I could have been wrong about the
"nobody can have been relying on it" part.

> Do you have a fix for that ?

Not right now, but I'll have a look. It's true that the patch probably
doesn't revert cleanly, but it shouldn't be hard to add back those few
lines in the appropriate spot, with a big fat comment that this does
something very fishy (at least as a temporary measure if we don't find a
proper solution soonish).

Rasmus