Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 16 Nov 2021 15:53:21 +0000 | From | Lee Jones <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] mfd: intel-lpss: Fix too early PM enablement in the ACPI ->probe() |
| |
On Mon, 15 Nov 2021, Aditya Garg wrote:
> > ________________________________ > From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> > Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 4:06 PM > To: Aditya Garg > Cc: Lee Jones; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Orlando Chamberlain > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] mfd: intel-lpss: Fix too early PM enablement in the ACPI ->probe() > > On Tue, Nov 02, 2021 at 05:42:35AM +0000, Aditya Garg wrote: > > > On 02-Nov-2021, at 12:30 AM, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > The runtime PM callback may be called as soon as the runtime PM facility > > > is enabled and activated. It means that ->suspend() may be called before > > > we finish probing the device in the ACPI case. Hence, NULL pointer > > > dereference: > > > > > > intel-lpss INT34BA:00: IRQ index 0 not found > > > BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 0000000000000030 > > > ... > > > Workqueue: pm pm_runtime_work > > > RIP: 0010:intel_lpss_suspend+0xb/0x40 [intel_lpss] > > > > > > To fix this, first try to register the device and only after that enable > > > runtime PM facility. > > > > > > Fixes: 4b45efe85263 ("mfd: Add support for Intel Sunrisepoint LPSS devices") > > > Reported-by: Orlando Chamberlain <redecorating@protonmail.com> > > > Reported-by: Aditya Garg <gargaditya08@live.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> > > > Tested-by: Aditya Garg <gargaditya08@live.com> > > > --- > > > v2: added tag (Aditya), returned 0 explicitly at the end of ->probe() > > > It works > > Thanks for testing again! > > Lee, can we have this as a fix material for v5.16-rcX?
Generally not, no.
We usually only push patches for the -rcs if they fix something that was broken during the merge window. Not 6+ years ago. :)
However, if other valid fixes appear, I'll shove it into the PR too.
> I would like to have it backported to stable 5.15 too.
Yes, once it's merged into mainline, it will be back-ported as far back as it applies cleanly.
If you have a specific kernel in mind, you should indicate it on the end of the Fixes line.
-- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
| |