Re: [GIT] Networking

[Arend van Spriel]

On 18-1-2016 12:30, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> Hi Kalle,
> 
> On 16/01/16 11:57, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> David, Hante,
>>>
>>> On 13/01/16 02:51, David Miller wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> Hante Meuleman (33):
>>> [...]
>>>>       brcmfmac: Move all module parameters to one place
>>
>> As a reminder to myself this is the commit id:
>>
>> 7d34b0560567 brcmfmac: Move all module parameters to one place
>>
>>> This particular patch breaks one of my boxes in a spectacular way:
>>>
>>> [    3.602155] Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 000027e4
>>> [    3.602160] pgd = c0003000
>>> [    3.602169] [000027e4] *pgd=80000040004003, *pmd=00000000
>>> [    3.602181] Internal error: Oops: 206 [#1] PREEMPT SMP ARM
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> This is caused by this hunk:
>>>
>>> @@ -890,7 +887,8 @@ static void brcmf_sdiod_sgtable_alloc(struct brcmf_sdio_dev *sdiodev)
>>>  	if (!sdiodev->sg_support)
>>>  		return;
>>>  
>>> -	nents = max_t(uint, BRCMF_DEFAULT_RXGLOM_SIZE, brcmf_sdiod_txglomsz);
>>> +	nents = max_t(uint, BRCMF_DEFAULT_RXGLOM_SIZE,
>>> +		      sdiodev->bus_if->drvr->settings->sdiod_txglomsz);
>>>  	nents += (nents >> 4) + 1;
>>>  
>>>  	WARN_ON(nents > sdiodev->max_segment_count);
>>>
>>> were drvr->settings is NULL (as the settings allocation seems to be done
>>> much later). The fix is not completely obvious to me (probably requires
>>> pushing the call to brcmf_mp_device_attach() down into the various bus
>>> specific functions). An alternative would be to restore the txglomsz
>>> parameter as it was before and not rely on settings being allocated.
>>
>> Should we revert the patch or can you Hante fix this? The revert doesn't
>> seem to be trivial so I would appreciate if someone could send a patch.
> 
> I've worked out a partial revert (see below) that allows my system to
> boot, but I'd rather see a proper fix from the maintainer of this code.

Hi Marc,

Thanks for the patch, but Hante has created a different patch basically
deferring the allocation of the sgtable. Feel free to give it a spin on
your box and share the results. I am looking for a arm64 platform to add
to my test machines so if you can recommend one (with PCIe).

Regards,
Arend