Re: ath9k gpio request

2016-06-07 Thread Kalle Valo 
Sudip Mukherjee  writes:

>> Sudip, could you also test patch 9151847, please? You can download the
>> patch from the patchwork link above.
>
> This is also ok. Please add my
> Tested-by: Sudip Mukherjee 
>
> and maybe a Reported-by tag is also appropriate in this case.

Yeah, I add those. Thanks Sudip.

-- 
Kalle Valo

RE: ath9k gpio request

2016-06-05 Thread Pan, Miaoqing 
Got it, thanks.  There is no difference of the changes for AR9462 which is the 
chip Sudip tested.

Thanks,
Miaoqing

-Original Message-
From: Kalle Valo [mailto:kv...@codeaurora.org] 
Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2016 10:38 PM
To: Pan, Miaoqing <miaoq...@qti.qualcomm.com>
Cc: Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukher...@gmail.com>; Stephen Rothwell 
<s...@canb.auug.org.au>; ath9k-devel <ath9k-de...@qca.qualcomm.com>; 
linux-n...@vger.kernel.org; linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org; 
linux-wirel...@vger.kernel.org; ath9k-de...@lists.ath9k.org; 
netdev@vger.kernel.org; Miaoqing Pan <miaoq...@codeaurora.org>
Subject: Re: ath9k gpio request

(Fixing top posting)

"Pan, Miaoqing" <miaoq...@qti.qualcomm.com> writes:

>>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/reg.h
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/reg.h
>>> @@ -1122,8 +1122,8 @@ enum {
>>>   #define AR9300_NUM_GPIO  16
>>>   #define AR9330_NUM_GPIO 16
>>>   #define AR9340_NUM_GPIO 23
>>> -#define AR9462_NUM_GPIO 10
>>> -#define AR9485_NUM_GPIO 12
>>> +#define AR9462_NUM_GPIO 14
>>> +#define AR9485_NUM_GPIO 11
>>>   #define AR9531_NUM_GPIO 18
>>>   #define AR9550_NUM_GPIO 24
>>>   #define AR9561_NUM_GPIO 23
>>> @@ -1139,8 +1139,8 @@ enum {
>>>   #define AR9300_GPIO_MASK0xF4FF
>>>   #define AR9330_GPIO_MASK0xF4FF
>>>   #define AR9340_GPIO_MASK0x000F
>>> -#define AR9462_GPIO_MASK0x03FF
>>> -#define AR9485_GPIO_MASK0x0FFF
>>> +#define AR9462_GPIO_MASK0x3FFF
>>> +#define AR9485_GPIO_MASK0x07FF
>>>   #define AR9531_GPIO_MASK0x000F
>>>   #define AR9550_GPIO_MASK0x000F
>>>   #define AR9561_GPIO_MASK0x000F
>>
>> solves the problem.
>>
>> Tested-by: Sudip Mukherjee <sudip.mukher...@codethink.co.uk>
>
> Done, https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9151847/

But the patch 9151847 is different from what Sudip tested above? Why?

And if you modify something _after_ the reporter has tested the patch clearly 
document what you changed and why. I do not want find hidden changes like this, 
even more so when the patch is going to a 4.7-rc release.

Sudip, could you also test patch 9151847, please? You can download the patch 
from the patchwork link above.

--
Kalle Valo

Re: ath9k gpio request

2016-06-05 Thread Sudip Mukherjee 

On Saturday 04 June 2016 08:07 PM, Kalle Valo wrote:

(Fixing top posting)

"Pan, Miaoqing"  writes:


--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/reg.h
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/reg.h
@@ -1122,8 +1122,8 @@ enum {
   #define AR9300_NUM_GPIO  16
   #define AR9330_NUM_GPIO 16
   #define AR9340_NUM_GPIO 23
-#define AR9462_NUM_GPIO 10
-#define AR9485_NUM_GPIO 12
+#define AR9462_NUM_GPIO 14
+#define AR9485_NUM_GPIO 11
   #define AR9531_NUM_GPIO 18
   #define AR9550_NUM_GPIO 24
   #define AR9561_NUM_GPIO 23
@@ -1139,8 +1139,8 @@ enum {
   #define AR9300_GPIO_MASK0xF4FF
   #define AR9330_GPIO_MASK0xF4FF
   #define AR9340_GPIO_MASK0x000F
-#define AR9462_GPIO_MASK0x03FF
-#define AR9485_GPIO_MASK0x0FFF
+#define AR9462_GPIO_MASK0x3FFF
+#define AR9485_GPIO_MASK0x07FF
   #define AR9531_GPIO_MASK0x000F
   #define AR9550_GPIO_MASK0x000F
   #define AR9561_GPIO_MASK0x000F


solves the problem.

Tested-by: Sudip Mukherjee 


Done, https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9151847/


But the patch 9151847 is different from what Sudip tested above? Why?

And if you modify something _after_ the reporter has tested the patch
clearly document what you changed and why. I do not want find hidden
changes like this, even more so when the patch is going to a 4.7-rc
release.

Sudip, could you also test patch 9151847, please? You can download the
patch from the patchwork link above.


This is also ok. Please add my
Tested-by: Sudip Mukherjee 

and maybe a Reported-by tag is also appropriate in this case.


Regards
Sudip

Re: ath9k gpio request

2016-06-04 Thread Kalle Valo 
(Fixing top posting)

"Pan, Miaoqing"  writes:

>>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/reg.h
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/reg.h
>>> @@ -1122,8 +1122,8 @@ enum {
>>>   #define AR9300_NUM_GPIO  16
>>>   #define AR9330_NUM_GPIO 16
>>>   #define AR9340_NUM_GPIO 23
>>> -#define AR9462_NUM_GPIO 10
>>> -#define AR9485_NUM_GPIO 12
>>> +#define AR9462_NUM_GPIO 14
>>> +#define AR9485_NUM_GPIO 11
>>>   #define AR9531_NUM_GPIO 18
>>>   #define AR9550_NUM_GPIO 24
>>>   #define AR9561_NUM_GPIO 23
>>> @@ -1139,8 +1139,8 @@ enum {
>>>   #define AR9300_GPIO_MASK0xF4FF
>>>   #define AR9330_GPIO_MASK0xF4FF
>>>   #define AR9340_GPIO_MASK0x000F
>>> -#define AR9462_GPIO_MASK0x03FF
>>> -#define AR9485_GPIO_MASK0x0FFF
>>> +#define AR9462_GPIO_MASK0x3FFF
>>> +#define AR9485_GPIO_MASK0x07FF
>>>   #define AR9531_GPIO_MASK0x000F
>>>   #define AR9550_GPIO_MASK0x000F
>>>   #define AR9561_GPIO_MASK0x000F
>>
>> solves the problem.
>>
>> Tested-by: Sudip Mukherjee 
>
> Done, https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9151847/

But the patch 9151847 is different from what Sudip tested above? Why?

And if you modify something _after_ the reporter has tested the patch
clearly document what you changed and why. I do not want find hidden
changes like this, even more so when the patch is going to a 4.7-rc
release.

Sudip, could you also test patch 9151847, please? You can download the
patch from the patchwork link above.

-- 
Kalle Valo

Re: ath9k gpio request

2016-06-02 Thread Pan, Miaoqing 
Done, https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9151847/.

Thanks,
Miaoqing

From: Kalle Valo <kv...@codeaurora.org>
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2016 1:33 PM
To: Pan, Miaoqing
Cc: Sudip Mukherjee; Stephen Rothwell; ath9k-devel; linux-n...@vger.kernel.org; 
linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org; linux-wirel...@vger.kernel.org; 
ath9k-de...@lists.ath9k.org; netdev@vger.kernel.org; Miaoqing Pan
Subject: Re: ath9k gpio request

Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukher...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Thursday 02 June 2016 01:32 PM, Pan, Miaoqing wrote:
>> Seems there are something wrong in the datasheet,  try
>>
>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/reg.h
>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/reg.h
>> @@ -1122,8 +1122,8 @@ enum {
>>   #define AR9300_NUM_GPIO  16
>>   #define AR9330_NUM_GPIO 16
>>   #define AR9340_NUM_GPIO 23
>> -#define AR9462_NUM_GPIO 10
>> -#define AR9485_NUM_GPIO 12
>> +#define AR9462_NUM_GPIO 14
>> +#define AR9485_NUM_GPIO 11
>>   #define AR9531_NUM_GPIO 18
>>   #define AR9550_NUM_GPIO 24
>>   #define AR9561_NUM_GPIO 23
>> @@ -1139,8 +1139,8 @@ enum {
>>   #define AR9300_GPIO_MASK0xF4FF
>>   #define AR9330_GPIO_MASK0xF4FF
>>   #define AR9340_GPIO_MASK0x000F
>> -#define AR9462_GPIO_MASK0x03FF
>> -#define AR9485_GPIO_MASK0x0FFF
>> +#define AR9462_GPIO_MASK0x3FFF
>> +#define AR9485_GPIO_MASK0x07FF
>>   #define AR9531_GPIO_MASK0x000F
>>   #define AR9550_GPIO_MASK0x000F
>>   #define AR9561_GPIO_MASK0x000F
>
> solves the problem.
>
> Tested-by: Sudip Mukherjee <sudip.mukher...@codethink.co.uk>

Great, thanks for testing everyone. Miaoqing, please send a proper patch
ASAP and I'll push it to 4.7.

--
Kalle Valo

Re: ath9k gpio request

2016-06-02 Thread Kalle Valo 
Sudip Mukherjee  writes:

> On Thursday 02 June 2016 01:32 PM, Pan, Miaoqing wrote:
>> Seems there are something wrong in the datasheet,  try
>>
>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/reg.h
>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/reg.h
>> @@ -1122,8 +1122,8 @@ enum {
>>   #define AR9300_NUM_GPIO  16
>>   #define AR9330_NUM_GPIO 16
>>   #define AR9340_NUM_GPIO 23
>> -#define AR9462_NUM_GPIO 10
>> -#define AR9485_NUM_GPIO 12
>> +#define AR9462_NUM_GPIO 14
>> +#define AR9485_NUM_GPIO 11
>>   #define AR9531_NUM_GPIO 18
>>   #define AR9550_NUM_GPIO 24
>>   #define AR9561_NUM_GPIO 23
>> @@ -1139,8 +1139,8 @@ enum {
>>   #define AR9300_GPIO_MASK0xF4FF
>>   #define AR9330_GPIO_MASK0xF4FF
>>   #define AR9340_GPIO_MASK0x000F
>> -#define AR9462_GPIO_MASK0x03FF
>> -#define AR9485_GPIO_MASK0x0FFF
>> +#define AR9462_GPIO_MASK0x3FFF
>> +#define AR9485_GPIO_MASK0x07FF
>>   #define AR9531_GPIO_MASK0x000F
>>   #define AR9550_GPIO_MASK0x000F
>>   #define AR9561_GPIO_MASK0x000F
>
> solves the problem.
>
> Tested-by: Sudip Mukherjee 

Great, thanks for testing everyone. Miaoqing, please send a proper patch
ASAP and I'll push it to 4.7.

-- 
Kalle Valo

Re: ath9k gpio request

2016-06-02 Thread Sudip Mukherjee 

On Thursday 02 June 2016 01:32 PM, Pan, Miaoqing wrote:

Seems there are something wrong in the datasheet,  try

--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/reg.h
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/reg.h
@@ -1122,8 +1122,8 @@ enum {
  #define AR9300_NUM_GPIO  16
  #define AR9330_NUM_GPIO 16
  #define AR9340_NUM_GPIO 23
-#define AR9462_NUM_GPIO 10
-#define AR9485_NUM_GPIO 12
+#define AR9462_NUM_GPIO 14
+#define AR9485_NUM_GPIO 11
  #define AR9531_NUM_GPIO 18
  #define AR9550_NUM_GPIO 24
  #define AR9561_NUM_GPIO 23
@@ -1139,8 +1139,8 @@ enum {
  #define AR9300_GPIO_MASK0xF4FF
  #define AR9330_GPIO_MASK0xF4FF
  #define AR9340_GPIO_MASK0x000F
-#define AR9462_GPIO_MASK0x03FF
-#define AR9485_GPIO_MASK0x0FFF
+#define AR9462_GPIO_MASK0x3FFF
+#define AR9485_GPIO_MASK0x07FF
  #define AR9531_GPIO_MASK0x000F
  #define AR9550_GPIO_MASK0x000F
  #define AR9561_GPIO_MASK0x000F


solves the problem.

Tested-by: Sudip Mukherjee 

Regards
Sudip

Re: ath9k gpio request

2016-06-02 Thread Janusz Dziedzic 
On 2 June 2016 at 10:02, Pan, Miaoqing <miaoq...@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:
> Seems there are something wrong in the datasheet,  try
>
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/reg.h
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/reg.h
> @@ -1122,8 +1122,8 @@ enum {
>  #define AR9300_NUM_GPIO  16
>  #define AR9330_NUM_GPIO 16
>  #define AR9340_NUM_GPIO 23
> -#define AR9462_NUM_GPIO 10
> -#define AR9485_NUM_GPIO 12
> +#define AR9462_NUM_GPIO 14
> +#define AR9485_NUM_GPIO 11
>  #define AR9531_NUM_GPIO 18
>  #define AR9550_NUM_GPIO 24
>  #define AR9561_NUM_GPIO 23
> @@ -1139,8 +1139,8 @@ enum {
>  #define AR9300_GPIO_MASK0xF4FF
>  #define AR9330_GPIO_MASK0xF4FF
>  #define AR9340_GPIO_MASK0x000F
> -#define AR9462_GPIO_MASK0x03FF
> -#define AR9485_GPIO_MASK0x0FFF
> +#define AR9462_GPIO_MASK0x3FFF
> +#define AR9485_GPIO_MASK0x07FF
>  #define AR9531_GPIO_MASK0x000F
>  #define AR9550_GPIO_MASK0x000F
>  #define AR9561_GPIO_MASK0x000F
>

Thanks, changes in reg.h solve the problem (my card AR9462 rev 01).

BR
Janusz

> Thanks,
> Miaoqing
>
> 
> From: Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukher...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2016 8:18 PM
> To: Pan, Miaoqing; Kalle Valo
> Cc: Stephen Rothwell; ath9k-devel; linux-n...@vger.kernel.org; 
> linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org; linux-wirel...@vger.kernel.org; 
> ath9k-de...@lists.ath9k.org; netdev@vger.kernel.org; Miaoqing Pan
> Subject: Re: ath9k gpio request
>
> On Wednesday 01 June 2016 04:42 PM, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
>> On Wednesday 01 June 2016 12:24 PM, Pan, Miaoqing wrote:
>>> which chip ?  And what's the GPIO number ?
>>
>> lspci -v reports:
>> 09:00.0 Network controller: Qualcomm Atheros AR9462 Wireless Network
>> Adapter (rev 01)
>>  Subsystem: Foxconn International, Inc. Device e052
>>  Flags: bus master, fast devsel, latency 0, IRQ 19
>>  Memory at c050 (64-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=512K]
>>  Expansion ROM at c058 [disabled] [size=64K]
>>  Capabilities: [40] Power Management version 2
>>  Capabilities: [50] MSI: Enable- Count=1/4 Maskable+ 64bit+
>>  Capabilities: [70] Express Endpoint, MSI 00
>>  Capabilities: [100] Advanced Error Reporting
>>  Capabilities: [140] Virtual Channel
>>  Capabilities: [160] Device Serial Number 00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00
>>  Kernel driver in use: ath9k
>>
>> Any easy way to find out the gpio number or i can modify the module to
>> find that out.
>
> Its trying for GPIO 11 with label ath9k-rfkill.
>
> The attached dmesg is with some modification as below.
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/hw.c
> b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/hw.c
> index 8b2895f9..23deea7 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/hw.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/hw.c
> @@ -2729,14 +2729,16 @@ static void ath9k_hw_gpio_cfg_wmac(struct ath_hw
> *ah, u32 gpio, bool out,
>   static void ath9k_hw_gpio_request(struct ath_hw *ah, u32 gpio, bool out,
>const char *label, u32 ah_signal_type)
>   {
> -   WARN_ON(gpio >= ah->caps.num_gpio_pins);
> +// WARN_ON(gpio >= ah->caps.num_gpio_pins);
> +
> +   pr_err("sudip: %d %s\n", gpio, label);
>
>  if (BIT(gpio) & ah->caps.gpio_mask)
>  ath9k_hw_gpio_cfg_wmac(ah, gpio, out, ah_signal_type);
>  else if (AR_SREV_SOC(ah))
>  ath9k_hw_gpio_cfg_soc(ah, gpio, out, label);
> -   else
> -   WARN_ON(1);
> +// else
> +// WARN_ON(1);
>   }
>
> Regards
> Sudip
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: ath9k gpio request

2016-06-02 Thread Pan, Miaoqing 
Seems there are something wrong in the datasheet,  try

--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/reg.h
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/reg.h
@@ -1122,8 +1122,8 @@ enum {
 #define AR9300_NUM_GPIO  16
 #define AR9330_NUM_GPIO 16
 #define AR9340_NUM_GPIO 23
-#define AR9462_NUM_GPIO 10
-#define AR9485_NUM_GPIO 12
+#define AR9462_NUM_GPIO 14
+#define AR9485_NUM_GPIO 11
 #define AR9531_NUM_GPIO 18
 #define AR9550_NUM_GPIO 24
 #define AR9561_NUM_GPIO 23
@@ -1139,8 +1139,8 @@ enum {
 #define AR9300_GPIO_MASK0xF4FF
 #define AR9330_GPIO_MASK0xF4FF
 #define AR9340_GPIO_MASK0x000F
-#define AR9462_GPIO_MASK0x03FF
-#define AR9485_GPIO_MASK0x0FFF
+#define AR9462_GPIO_MASK0x3FFF
+#define AR9485_GPIO_MASK0x07FF
 #define AR9531_GPIO_MASK0x000F
 #define AR9550_GPIO_MASK0x000F
 #define AR9561_GPIO_MASK0x000F

Thanks,
Miaoqing


From: Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukher...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2016 8:18 PM
To: Pan, Miaoqing; Kalle Valo
Cc: Stephen Rothwell; ath9k-devel; linux-n...@vger.kernel.org; 
linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org; linux-wirel...@vger.kernel.org; 
ath9k-de...@lists.ath9k.org; netdev@vger.kernel.org; Miaoqing Pan
Subject: Re: ath9k gpio request

On Wednesday 01 June 2016 04:42 PM, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 June 2016 12:24 PM, Pan, Miaoqing wrote:
>> which chip ?  And what's the GPIO number ?
>
> lspci -v reports:
> 09:00.0 Network controller: Qualcomm Atheros AR9462 Wireless Network
> Adapter (rev 01)
>  Subsystem: Foxconn International, Inc. Device e052
>  Flags: bus master, fast devsel, latency 0, IRQ 19
>  Memory at c050 (64-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=512K]
>  Expansion ROM at c058 [disabled] [size=64K]
>  Capabilities: [40] Power Management version 2
>  Capabilities: [50] MSI: Enable- Count=1/4 Maskable+ 64bit+
>  Capabilities: [70] Express Endpoint, MSI 00
>  Capabilities: [100] Advanced Error Reporting
>  Capabilities: [140] Virtual Channel
>  Capabilities: [160] Device Serial Number 00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00
>  Kernel driver in use: ath9k
>
> Any easy way to find out the gpio number or i can modify the module to
> find that out.

Its trying for GPIO 11 with label ath9k-rfkill.

The attached dmesg is with some modification as below.

diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/hw.c
b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/hw.c
index 8b2895f9..23deea7 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/hw.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/hw.c
@@ -2729,14 +2729,16 @@ static void ath9k_hw_gpio_cfg_wmac(struct ath_hw
*ah, u32 gpio, bool out,
  static void ath9k_hw_gpio_request(struct ath_hw *ah, u32 gpio, bool out,
   const char *label, u32 ah_signal_type)
  {
-   WARN_ON(gpio >= ah->caps.num_gpio_pins);
+// WARN_ON(gpio >= ah->caps.num_gpio_pins);
+
+   pr_err("sudip: %d %s\n", gpio, label);

 if (BIT(gpio) & ah->caps.gpio_mask)
 ath9k_hw_gpio_cfg_wmac(ah, gpio, out, ah_signal_type);
 else if (AR_SREV_SOC(ah))
 ath9k_hw_gpio_cfg_soc(ah, gpio, out, label);
-   else
-   WARN_ON(1);
+// else
+// WARN_ON(1);
  }

Regards
Sudip

Re: ath9k gpio request

2016-06-01 Thread Sudip Mukherjee 

On Wednesday 01 June 2016 12:24 PM, Pan, Miaoqing wrote:

which chip ?  And what's the GPIO number ?


lspci -v reports:
09:00.0 Network controller: Qualcomm Atheros AR9462 Wireless Network 
Adapter (rev 01)

Subsystem: Foxconn International, Inc. Device e052
Flags: bus master, fast devsel, latency 0, IRQ 19
Memory at c050 (64-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=512K]
Expansion ROM at c058 [disabled] [size=64K]
Capabilities: [40] Power Management version 2
Capabilities: [50] MSI: Enable- Count=1/4 Maskable+ 64bit+
Capabilities: [70] Express Endpoint, MSI 00
Capabilities: [100] Advanced Error Reporting
Capabilities: [140] Virtual Channel
Capabilities: [160] Device Serial Number 00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00
Kernel driver in use: ath9k

Any easy way to find out the gpio number or i can modify the module to 
find that out.


Regards
Sudip

Re: ath9k gpio request

2016-06-01 Thread Pan, Miaoqing 
which chip ?  And what's the GPIO number ?

Thanks,
Miaoqing


From: Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukher...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 3:35 PM
To: Kalle Valo
Cc: Stephen Rothwell; ath9k-devel; linux-n...@vger.kernel.org; 
linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org; linux-wirel...@vger.kernel.org; 
ath9k-de...@lists.ath9k.org; netdev@vger.kernel.org; Miaoqing Pan
Subject: Re: ath9k gpio request

On Tuesday 31 May 2016 01:01 PM, Kalle Valo wrote:
> (Changing subject to a more descriptive one, was "Re: linux-next: Tree
> for May 30")
>
> Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukher...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Hi All,
>> I have just built and booted with next-20160530 and my dmesg is full
>> of warnings from ath9k. Last kernel tested was v4.6 and there was no
>> problem with that.
>>




> The traces look incomplete to me, is there anything more before the
> "Call Trace:" line? Full unedited logs are usually the best.

sure, its attached. those two warnings are recursively going on and
there is nothing else left in dmesg to see what started it.

Regards
Sudip