Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] usb: ulpi: ulpi_init should be executed in subsys_initcall
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 08:11:27PM -0700, David Cohen wrote: On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 08:09:54PM -0700, David Cohen wrote: Hi, On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 10:07:05AM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote: Many drivers and modules depend on ULPI bus registeration to register ULPI interfaces and drivers. It's more appropriate to register ULPI bus in subsys_initcall instead of module_init. Kernel panic has been reported with some kind of kernel config. Even though I agree subsys_initcall is better to register ulpi bus, it's still no excuse to have kernel panic. What about ULPI bus being compiled as module? IMHO this is avoiding the proper kernel panic fix which should be failing gracefully (or defer probe) from tusb1210 driver. Maybe I need to express myself better :) IMHO we should not consider work done with this patch only. It's still incomplete. Then please fix it properly, this is not the correct solution. greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-usb in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] usb: ulpi: ulpi_init should be executed in subsys_initcall
On 05/22/2015 11:11 AM, David Cohen wrote: On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 08:09:54PM -0700, David Cohen wrote: Hi, On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 10:07:05AM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote: Many drivers and modules depend on ULPI bus registeration to register ULPI interfaces and drivers. It's more appropriate to register ULPI bus in subsys_initcall instead of module_init. Kernel panic has been reported with some kind of kernel config. Even though I agree subsys_initcall is better to register ulpi bus, it's still no excuse to have kernel panic. What about ULPI bus being compiled as module? No kernel panic if ULPI is built as a module. IMHO this is avoiding the proper kernel panic fix which should be failing gracefully (or defer probe) from tusb1210 driver. Maybe I need to express myself better :) IMHO we should not consider work done with this patch only. It's still incomplete. I am with you on that we should know the real problem. I could go ahead with further debugging. Do you have any suggestions about which direction should I go? Br, David Thank you, -Baolu -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-usb in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] usb: ulpi: ulpi_init should be executed in subsys_initcall
On 05/22/2015 02:46 PM, Lu, Baolu wrote: On 05/22/2015 11:11 AM, David Cohen wrote: On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 08:09:54PM -0700, David Cohen wrote: Hi, On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 10:07:05AM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote: Many drivers and modules depend on ULPI bus registeration to register ULPI interfaces and drivers. It's more appropriate to register ULPI bus in subsys_initcall instead of module_init. Kernel panic has been reported with some kind of kernel config. Even though I agree subsys_initcall is better to register ulpi bus, it's still no excuse to have kernel panic. What about ULPI bus being compiled as module? No kernel panic if ULPI is built as a module. IMHO this is avoiding the proper kernel panic fix which should be failing gracefully (or defer probe) from tusb1210 driver. Maybe I need to express myself better :) IMHO we should not consider work done with this patch only. It's still incomplete. I am with you on that we should know the real problem. I could go ahead with further debugging. Do you have any suggestions about which direction should I go? I forgot to mention that the panic was found in an Android environment. The kernel version is v4.1-rc3. Br, David Thank you, -Baolu -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-usb in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] usb: ulpi: ulpi_init should be executed in subsys_initcall
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 03:50:47PM +0800, Lu, Baolu wrote: On 05/22/2015 02:46 PM, Lu, Baolu wrote: On 05/22/2015 11:11 AM, David Cohen wrote: On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 08:09:54PM -0700, David Cohen wrote: Hi, On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 10:07:05AM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote: Many drivers and modules depend on ULPI bus registeration to register ULPI interfaces and drivers. It's more appropriate to register ULPI bus in subsys_initcall instead of module_init. Kernel panic has been reported with some kind of kernel config. Even though I agree subsys_initcall is better to register ulpi bus, it's still no excuse to have kernel panic. What about ULPI bus being compiled as module? No kernel panic if ULPI is built as a module. IMHO this is avoiding the proper kernel panic fix which should be failing gracefully (or defer probe) from tusb1210 driver. Maybe I need to express myself better :) IMHO we should not consider work done with this patch only. It's still incomplete. I am with you on that we should know the real problem. I could go ahead with further debugging. Do you have any suggestions about which direction should I go? I forgot to mention that the panic was found in an Android environment. The kernel version is v4.1-rc3. FWIW: The problem with Android environment is the amount of off-tree patches you may have over there. For upstream tasks, I'd suggest use a clean tree + patches you want to test. Usually yocto looks more friendly to test under this environment. Br, David Br, David Thank you, -Baolu -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-usb in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] usb: ulpi: ulpi_init should be executed in subsys_initcall
Many drivers and modules depend on ULPI bus registeration to register ULPI interfaces and drivers. It's more appropriate to register ULPI bus in subsys_initcall instead of module_init. Kernel panic has been reported with some kind of kernel config. Even though I agree subsys_initcall is better to register ulpi bus, it's still no excuse to have kernel panic. What about ULPI bus being compiled as module? No kernel panic if ULPI is built as a module. IMHO this is avoiding the proper kernel panic fix which should be failing gracefully (or defer probe) from tusb1210 driver. Maybe I need to express myself better :) IMHO we should not consider work done with this patch only. It's still incomplete. I am with you on that we should know the real problem. I could go ahead with further debugging. Do you have any suggestions about which direction should I go? This patch does not address all the cases where the panic may occur, like the case where the bus itself fails register, while Sasha's patch does. For the panic, we'll use Sasha's patch. I though we were clear on this. This patch addresses an issue with the load order. Even with the panic fixed, we still may end up loading the drivers depending on the bus, i.e. ulpi phy drivers or the ulpi interface providers, before the bus. That is a different issue, but we need to fix it as well. To fix the panic, you can already pick Sasha's patch titled: usb: ulpi: don't register drivers if bus doesn't exist Baolu, please fix the commit message to explain this patch is fixing the problem with the load order. Thanks, -- heikki -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-usb in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] usb: ulpi: ulpi_init should be executed in subsys_initcall
Hi, On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 10:07:05AM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote: Many drivers and modules depend on ULPI bus registeration to register ULPI interfaces and drivers. It's more appropriate to register ULPI bus in subsys_initcall instead of module_init. Kernel panic has been reported with some kind of kernel config. Even though I agree subsys_initcall is better to register ulpi bus, it's still no excuse to have kernel panic. What about ULPI bus being compiled as module? IMHO this is avoiding the proper kernel panic fix which should be failing gracefully (or defer probe) from tusb1210 driver. Br, David -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-usb in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] usb: ulpi: ulpi_init should be executed in subsys_initcall
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 08:09:54PM -0700, David Cohen wrote: Hi, On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 10:07:05AM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote: Many drivers and modules depend on ULPI bus registeration to register ULPI interfaces and drivers. It's more appropriate to register ULPI bus in subsys_initcall instead of module_init. Kernel panic has been reported with some kind of kernel config. Even though I agree subsys_initcall is better to register ulpi bus, it's still no excuse to have kernel panic. What about ULPI bus being compiled as module? IMHO this is avoiding the proper kernel panic fix which should be failing gracefully (or defer probe) from tusb1210 driver. Maybe I need to express myself better :) IMHO we should not consider work done with this patch only. It's still incomplete. Br, David -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-usb in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
