On 05/17/2016 10:01 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote:

Le 17/05/2016 21:37, Guenter Roeck a écrit :

quoted

Hi,

my xtensa qemu tests crash in -next as follows.

[ ... ]

[    9.366256] libphy: ethoc-mdio: probed
[    9.367389]  (null): could not attach to PHY
[    9.368555]  (null): failed to probe MDIO bus
[    9.371540] Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address
0000001c
[    9.371540]  pc = d0320926, ra = 903209d1
[    9.375358] Oops: sig: 11 [#1]
[    9.376081] PREEMPT
[    9.377080] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper Not tainted
4.6.0-next-20160517 #1
[    9.378397] task: d7c2c000 ti: d7c30000 task.ti: d7c30000
[    9.379394] a00: 903209d1 d7c31bd0 d7fb5810 00000001 00000000
00000000 d7f45c00 d7c31bd0
[    9.382298] a08: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00060100
d04b0c10 d7f45dfc d7c31bb0
[    9.385732] pc: d0320926, ps: 00060110, depc: 00000018, excvaddr:
0000001c
[    9.387061] lbeg: d0322e35, lend: d0322e57 lcount: 00000000, sar:
00000011
[    9.388173]
Stack: d7c31be0 00060700 d7f45c00 d7c31bd0 9021d509 d7c31c30 d7f45c00
00000000
        d0485dcc d0485dcc d7fb5810 d7c2c000 00000000 d7c31c30 d7f45c00
d025befc
        d0485dcc d7c30000 d7f45c34 d7c31bf0 9021c985 d7c31c50 d7f45c00
d7f45c34
[    9.396652] Call Trace:
[    9.397469]  [<d021d4d9>] __device_release_driver+0x7d/0x98
[    9.398869]  [<d021d509>] device_release_driver+0x15/0x20
[    9.400247]  [<d021c985>] bus_remove_device+0xc1/0xd4
[    9.401569]  [<d021a935>] device_del+0x109/0x15c
[    9.402794]  [<d025c3f9>] phy_mdio_device_remove+0xd/0x18
[    9.404124]  [<d025d264>] mdiobus_unregister+0x40/0x5c
[    9.405444]  [<d025ff44>] ethoc_probe+0x534/0x5b8
[    9.406742]  [<d021e2e0>] platform_drv_probe+0x28/0x48
[    9.408122]  [<d021d1e5>] driver_probe_device+0x101/0x234
[    9.409499]  [<d021d395>] __driver_attach+0x7d/0x98
[    9.410809]  [<d021bd80>] bus_for_each_dev+0x30/0x5c
[    9.412104]  [<d021cdf0>] driver_attach+0x14/0x18
[    9.413385]  [<d021ca61>] bus_add_driver+0xc9/0x198
[    9.414686]  [<d021d7d4>] driver_register+0x70/0xa0
[    9.416001]  [<d021e2b4>] __platform_driver_register+0x24/0x28
[    9.417463]  [<d04a1d34>] ethoc_driver_init+0x10/0x14
[    9.418824]  [<d00032c8>] do_one_initcall+0x80/0x1ac
[    9.420083]  [<d049386d>] kernel_init_freeable+0x131/0x198
[    9.421504]  [<d03236e8>] kernel_init+0xc/0xb0
[    9.422693]  [<d000482c>] ret_from_kernel_thread+0x8/0xc

Bisect points to commit da47b4572056 ("phy: add support for a reset-gpio
specification").
Bisect log is attached. Reverting the patch fixes the problem.

Aside from what you pointed out, this patch was still in dicussion when
it got merged, since we got a concurrent patch from Sergei which tries
to deal with the same kind of problem.

Do you mind sending a revert, or I can do that first thing in the morning.

quoted

I think there may be a number of problems, all of them exposed by the patch
but really separate.

GPIOLIB is not configured in my test case, meaning gpiod_get_optional()
returns -ENOSYS, and phy_probe() thus returns an error. Question here is if
it is really appropriate for the XXX_optional() gpiolib functions to return
an error if GPIOLIB is not configured. Either case, result is that pretty
much all phy registrations will now fail if GPIOLIB is not configured.

Coincidentally, turns out that Uwe had objected to having gpiod_get_optional()
return NULL if GPIOLIB is not configured [1], meaning gpiod_get_optional()
and friends are intentionally not really optional, and the patch breaks
non-GPIOLIB configurations for good.

With that in mind, I agree, the patch should be reverted. It would be great if
you can do it; too late for me tonight.

Guenter

---
[1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/441801/