Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] Bugfix for of_match_node ordering

[Sachin Kamat]

Hi Grant,

I observe the following boot failure with today's (next-20140220) linux-next
tree on Exynos based boards with the default exynos_defconfig.

Uncompressing Linux... done, booting the kernel.
[    0.000000] Booting Linux on physical CPU 0x900
[    0.000000] Linux version 3.14.0-rc3-next-20140220 (sachin@linaro)
(gcc version 4.8.2 20130805 (prerelease) (crosstool-NG linaro-1.
13.1-4.8-2013.08 - Linaro GCC 2013.08) ) #1132 SMP PREEMPT Thu Feb 20
13:49:27 IST 2014
[    0.000000] CPU: ARMv7 Processor [412fc091] revision 1 (ARMv7), cr=10c5387d
[    0.000000] CPU: PIPT / VIPT nonaliasing data cache, VIPT aliasing
instruction cache
[    0.000000] Machine model: Insignal Origen evaluation board based
on Exynos4210
[    0.000000] bootconsole [earlycon0] enabled
[    0.000000] Memory policy: Data cache writealloc
[    0.000000] CPU EXYNOS4210 (id 0x43210011)
[    0.000000] On node 0 totalpages: 258048
[    0.000000]   Normal zone: 1520 pages used for memmap
[    0.000000]   Normal zone: 0 pages reserved
[    0.000000]   Normal zone: 190464 pages, LIFO batch:31
[    0.000000]   HighMem zone: 528 pages used for memmap
[    0.000000]   HighMem zone: 67584 pages, LIFO batch:15
[    0.000000] BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#0, swapper/0
[    0.000000]  lock: devtree_lock+0x0/0x10, .magic: dead4ead, .owner:
swapper/0, .owner_cpu: 0
[    0.000000] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted
3.14.0-rc3-next-20140220 #1132
[    0.000000] [<c0013e9c>] (unwind_backtrace) from [<c0011250>]
(show_stack+0x10/0x14)
[    0.000000] [<c0011250>] (show_stack) from [<c0386740>]
(dump_stack+0x7c/0xbc)
[    0.000000] [<c0386740>] (dump_stack) from [<c005501c>]
(do_raw_spin_lock+0x188/0x18c)
[    0.000000] [<c005501c>] (do_raw_spin_lock) from [<c038b614>]
(_raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x20/0x28)
[    0.000000] [<c038b614>] (_raw_spin_lock_irqsave) from [<c02de37c>]
(of_find_property+0x20/0x4c)
[    0.000000] [<c02de37c>] (of_find_property) from [<c02df110>]
(__of_device_is_compatible+0xb4/0x110)
[    0.000000] [<c02df110>] (__of_device_is_compatible) from
[<c02df22c>] (of_find_compatible_node+0x4c/0x7c)
[    0.000000] [<c02df22c>] (of_find_compatible_node) from
[<c04cedf4>] (exynos_firmware_init+0x18/0x7c)
[    0.000000] [<c04cedf4>] (exynos_firmware_init) from [<c04caef0>]
(setup_arch+0x860/0x898)
[    0.000000] [<c04caef0>] (setup_arch) from [<c04c7820>]
(start_kernel+0x80/0x3dc)
[    0.000000] [<c04c7820>] (start_kernel) from [<40008074>] (0x40008074)
[    0.000000] BUG: spinlock lockup suspected on CPU#0, swapper/0
[    0.000000]  lock: devtree_lock+0x0/0x10, .magic: dead4ead, .owner:
swapper/0, .owner_cpu: 0
[    0.000000] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted
3.14.0-rc3-next-20140220 #1132
[    0.000000] [<c0013e9c>] (unwind_backtrace) from [<c0011250>]
(show_stack+0x10/0x14)
[    0.000000] [<c0011250>] (show_stack) from [<c0386740>]
(dump_stack+0x7c/0xbc)
[    0.000000] [<c0386740>] (dump_stack) from [<c0054fac>]
(do_raw_spin_lock+0x118/0x18c)
[    0.000000] [<c0054fac>] (do_raw_spin_lock) from [<c038b614>]
(_raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x20/0x28)
[    0.000000] [<c038b614>] (_raw_spin_lock_irqsave) from [<c02de37c>]
(of_find_property+0x20/0x4c)
[    0.000000] [<c02de37c>] (of_find_property) from [<c02df110>]
(__of_device_is_compatible+0xb4/0x110)
[    0.000000] [<c02df110>] (__of_device_is_compatible) from
[<c02df22c>] (of_find_compatible_node+0x4c/0x7c)
[    0.000000] [<c02df22c>] (of_find_compatible_node) from
[<c04cedf4>] (exynos_firmware_init+0x18/0x7c)
[    0.000000] [<c04cedf4>] (exynos_firmware_init) from [<c04caef0>]
(setup_arch+0x860/0x898)
[    0.000000] [<c04caef0>] (setup_arch) from [<c04c7820>]
(start_kernel+0x80/0x3dc)
[    0.000000] [<c04c7820>] (start_kernel) from [<40008074>] (0x40008074)

Regards,
Sachin



On 19 February 2014 19:44, Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've taken Kevin's latest rework and done even more rework on it. :-) I
> didn't quite like how it was looking so I rolled his scoring code
> directly into __of_device_is_compatible() so that the function always
> returns a score in a way that is still compatible with the existing
> users (ie. non-zero == successful match). This eliminates the need for a
> separate pscore argument and it also let me roll the type and name
> checks into the same function. I'm a lot happier with it overall and it
> makes for a slightly smaller number of lines of code changed. Please
> take a look and give it a spin. This is basically a bug fix so I'll need
> to push it out to Linus in the near future.
>
> Acks and Tested-bys would be particularly appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> g.
>
> Kevin Hao (2):
>         Revert "of: search the best compatible match first in __of_match_node()"
>         of: reimplement the matching method for __of_match_node()
>
> Grant Likely (2):
>         of: Move testcase FDT data into drivers/of
>         of: Add self test for of_match_node()
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/