On 02/11/2013 01:29 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 02/08/2013 04:09 PM, Rob Herring wrote: >> On 02/06/2013 02:30 PM, Paul Gortmaker wrote: >>> From: Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> >>> >>> With the locking cleanup in place (from "OF: Fixup resursive >>> locking code paths"), we can now do the conversion from the >>> rw_lock to a raw spinlock as required for preempt-rt. >>> >>> The previous cleanup and this conversion were originally >>> separate since they predated when mainline got raw spinlock (in >>> commit c2f21ce2e31286a "locking: Implement new raw_spinlock"). >>> >>> So, at that point in time, the cleanup was considered plausible >>> for mainline, but not this conversion. In any case, we've kept >>> them separate as it makes for easier review and better bisection. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> >>> [PG: taken from preempt-rt, update subject & add a commit log] >>> Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortma...@windriver.com> >>> --- >>> >>> [v2: recent commit e81b329 ("powerpc+of: Add /proc device tree >>> updating to of node add/remove") added two more instances of >>> write_unlock that also needed converting to raw_spin_unlock. >>> Retested (boot) on sbc8548, defconfig builds on arm/sparc; no >>> new warnings observed.] >>> >>> arch/sparc/kernel/prom_common.c | 4 +- >>> drivers/of/base.c | 100 >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++------------------ >>> include/linux/of.h | 2 +- >>> 3 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-) >> >> Applied. > > This commit is present in next-20130211, and causes a boot failure > (hang) early while booting on Tegra. Reverting just this one commit > solves the issue. > > I'll see if I can track down where the issue is. Given the commit > description, I assume there's some new recursive lock issue that snuck > in between the previous fix for them and this commit? Any hints welcome. > > One thing I wonder looking at the patch: Most paths use > raw_spin_lock_irqsave() but a few use just raw_spin_lock(). I wonder how > that decision was made?
I found the problem. of_get_next_available_child -> of_device_is_available -> of_get_property -> of_get_property. An unlocked version of of_device_is_available is needed here. Rob _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss