Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-169422-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Mon, 6 May 2024 10:35:31 +0300
From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
To: Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>
Cc: Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@linux.dev>,
	Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ideasonboard.com>,
	Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>,
	Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>,
	David Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
	Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com>,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] drm: zynqmp_dp: Lockup in zynqmp_dp_bridge_detect when
 device is unbound
Message-ID: <20240506073531.GA10260@pendragon.ideasonboard.com>
References: <4d8f4c9b-2efb-4774-9a37-2f257f79b2c9@linux.dev>
 <20240504122118.GB24548@pendragon.ideasonboard.com>
 <20240506-charcoal-griffin-of-tact-174dde@houat>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240506-charcoal-griffin-of-tact-174dde@houat>

On Mon, May 06, 2024 at 09:29:36AM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> Hi Laurent, Sean,
> 
> On Sat, May 04, 2024 at 03:21:18PM GMT, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 05:54:32PM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
> > > I have discovered a bug in the displayport driver on drm-misc-next. To
> > > trigger it, run
> > > 
> > > echo fd4a0000.display > /sys/bus/platform/drivers/zynqmp-dpsub/unbind
> > > 
> > > The system will become unresponsive and (after a bit) splat with a hard
> > > LOCKUP. One core will be unresponsive at the first zynqmp_dp_read in
> > > zynqmp_dp_bridge_detect.
> > > 
> > > I believe the issue is due the registers being unmapped and the block
> > > put into reset in zynqmp_dp_remove instead of zynqmp_dpsub_release.
> > 
> > That is on purpose. Drivers are not allowed to access the device at all
> > after .remove() returns.
> 
> It's not "on purpose" no. Drivers indeed are not allowed to access the
> device after remove, but the kernel shouldn't crash. This is exactly
> why we have drm_dev_enter / drm_dev_exit.

I didn't mean the crash was on purpose :-) It's the registers being
unmapped that is, as nothing should touch those registers after
remove() returns.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart