Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Wed, 15 Jun 2022 17:29:41 +0100 | From | Cristian Marussi <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 11/22] firmware: arm_scmi: Add SCMIv3.1 extended names protocols support |
| |
On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 09:10:03AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: > On 6/15/22 02:40, Cristian Marussi wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 09:18:03AM +0100, Cristian Marussi wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 05:45:11AM +0200, Florian Fainelli wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 3/30/2022 5:05 PM, Cristian Marussi wrote: > > > > > Using the common protocol helper implementation add support for all new > > > > > SCMIv3.1 extended names commands related to all protocols with the > > > > > exception of SENSOR_AXIS_GET_NAME. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com> > > > > > > > > This causes the following splat on a platform where regulators fail to > > > > initialize: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Florian, > > > > > > thanks for the report. > > > > > > It seems a memory error while allocating so it was not meant to be > > > solved by the fixes, anyway, I've never seen this splat in my testing > > > and at first sight I cannot see anything wrong in the devm_k* calls > > > inside scmi_voltage_protocol_init...is there any particular config in > > > your setup ? > > > > > > Moreover, the WARNING line 5402 seems to match v5.19-rc1 and it has > > > slightly changed with -rc-1, so I'll try rebasing on that at first and > > > see if I can reproduce the issue locally. > > > > > > > I just re-tested the series rebased on v519-rc1 plus fixes and I cannot > > reproduce in my setup with a few (~9) good and bad voltage domains. > > > > How many voltage domains are advertised by the platform in your setup ? > > There are 11 voltage regulators on this platform, and of course, now that I > am trying to reproduce the splat I reported I just cannot anymore... I will > let you know if there is anything that needs to be done. Thanks for being > responsive as usual!
... you're welcome...
I'm trying to figure out where an abnormal mem request could happen...
can you try adding this (for brutal debugging) when you try ? (...just to rule out funny fw replies.... :D)
Thanks, Cristian
--->8----
diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/voltage.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/voltage.c index 895741b66f5a..fd841292df5c 100644 --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/voltage.c +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/voltage.c @@ -108,6 +108,9 @@ static int scmi_init_voltage_levels(struct device *dev, return -EINVAL; } + dev_info(dev, "num_returned:%d num_remaining:%d\n", + num_returned, num_remaining); + v->levels_uv = devm_kcalloc(dev, num_levels, sizeof(u32), GFP_KERNEL); if (!v->levels_uv) return -ENOMEM;
> -- > Florian
| |