From: Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>
To: Mike Turquette <mturquette@linaro.org>
Cc: Eduardo Valentin <eduardo.valentin@ti.com>,
balbi@ti.com,
Linux OMAP Mailing List <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>,
Roger Quadros <rogerq@ti.com>, Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>,
Linux ARM Kernel Mailing List
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Luciano Coelho <coelho@ti.com>
Subject: Re: Division by zero caused by CCF
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 17:04:41 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130730140441.GK28162@radagast> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPtuhTiUsLffRaC+8Gd8me2OYeMUOuFM4CqW3vnXmkkp53P_yg@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7930 bytes --]
Hi,
this is still broken on v3.11-rc3 and Luca got his Blaze (OMAP4) to fail
the same way
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 10:45:38AM -0700, Mike Turquette wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 6:10 AM, Eduardo Valentin
> <eduardo.valentin@ti.com> wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA256
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Adding Mike's correct address.
> >
> > On 16-07-2013 08:37, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> trying to get USB host verified on OMAP5 uEVM with v3.11-rc1. The
> >> clk_set_rate() call ends up in a division by zero, which is quite
> >> interesting provided the driver will only call clk_set_rate() if the
> >> clock is valid and clk_rate is != 0.
> >>
> >>
> >> [ 22.009238] Division by zero in kernel.
> >> [ 22.009250] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Tainted: G W 3.11.0-rc1-00081-g3310d44-dirty #118
> >> [ 22.009275] [<c001c83c>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xf0) from [<c0018a1c>] (show_stack+0x10/0x14)
> >> [ 22.009289] [<c0018a1c>] (show_stack+0x10/0x14) from [<c057403c>] (dump_stack+0x70/0x8c)
> >> [ 22.009304] [<c057403c>] (dump_stack+0x70/0x8c) from [<c02e4154>] (Ldiv0+0x8/0x10)
> >> [ 22.009319] [<c02e4154>] (Ldiv0+0x8/0x10) from [<c048d460>] (clk_divider_set_rate+0x10/0xdc)
> >> [ 22.009331] [<c048d460>] (clk_divider_set_rate+0x10/0xdc) from [<c048c124>] (clk_change_rate+0x38/0xb0)
> >> [ 22.009341] [<c048c124>] (clk_change_rate+0x38/0xb0) from [<c048c20c>] (clk_set_rate+0x70/0xa8)
> >> [ 22.009354] [<c048c20c>] (clk_set_rate+0x70/0xa8) from [<c042b244>] (nop_usb_xceiv_probe+0x1fc/0x2f8)
> >> [ 22.009369] [<c042b244>] (nop_usb_xceiv_probe+0x1fc/0x2f8) from [<c036b47c>] (platform_drv_probe+0x18/0x1c)
> >> [ 22.009380] [<c036b47c>] (platform_drv_probe+0x18/0x1c) from [<c0369f44>] (really_probe+0x70/0x1f4)
> >> [ 22.009390] [<c0369f44>] (really_probe+0x70/0x1f4) from [<c036a1dc>] (driver_probe_device+0x30/0x48)
> >> [ 22.009401] [<c036a1dc>] (driver_probe_device+0x30/0x48) from [<c036a288>] (__driver_attach+0x94/0x98)
> >> [ 22.009411] [<c036a288>] (__driver_attach+0x94/0x98) from [<c0368748>] (bus_for_each_dev+0x54/0x88)
> >> [ 22.009420] [<c0368748>] (bus_for_each_dev+0x54/0x88) from [<c036972c>] (bus_add_driver+0xdc/0x29c)
> >> [ 22.009430] [<c036972c>] (bus_add_driver+0xdc/0x29c) from [<c036a760>] (driver_register+0x78/0x190)
> >> [ 22.009440] [<c036a760>] (driver_register+0x78/0x190) from [<c00087b0>] (do_one_initcall+0x34/0x164)
> >> [ 22.009453] [<c00087b0>] (do_one_initcall+0x34/0x164) from [<c07b18f4>] (do_basic_setup+0x90/0xc4)
> >> [ 22.009466] [<c07b18f4>] (do_basic_setup+0x90/0xc4) from [<c07b199c>] (kernel_init_freeable+0x74/0x110)
> >> [ 22.009478] [<c07b199c>] (kernel_init_freeable+0x74/0x110) from [<c05676c4>] (kernel_init+0x8/0xe4)
> >> [ 22.009491] [<c05676c4>] (kernel_init+0x8/0xe4) from [<c0014648>] (ret_from_fork+0x14/0x2c)
> >>
> >> I believe the problem is the actual division reaching
> >> clk_divider_set_rate().
> >>
> >> drivers/clk/clk-divider.c::clk_divider_set_rate()
> >>
> >> | static int clk_divider_set_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate,
> >> | unsigned long parent_rate)
> >> | {
> >> | struct clk_divider *divider = to_clk_divider(hw);
> >> | unsigned int div, value;
> >> | unsigned long flags = 0;
> >> | u32 val;
> >> |
> >> | div = parent_rate / rate;
> >>
> >> right here, but how come rate would zero provided driver checks for it
> >> as below.
> >>
> >> drivers/usb/phy/phy-nop.c::nop_usb_xceiv_probe()
> >>
> >> | if (!IS_ERR(nop->clk) && clk_rate) {
> >> | err = clk_set_rate(nop->clk, clk_rate);
> >> | if (err) {
> >> | dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Error setting clock rate\n");
> >> | return err;
> >> | }
> >> | }
> >>
> >> I've added a few prints around CCF to try and track what's going on:
> >>
> >> [ 21.592690] ====> nop_usb_xceiv_probe rate 19200000
> >> [ 21.592700] ====> clk_set_rate rate 19200000
> >> [ 21.592707] ====> clk_calc_new_rates rate 19200000
> >> [ 21.592713] ====> clk_divider_round_rate rate 19200000
> >> [ 21.592719] ====> clk_divider_bestdiv rate 19200000
> >> [ 21.592726] ====> clk_change_rate best_parent_rate 0
> >
> > or because we reach:
> > if (clk->ops->set_rate)
> > clk->ops->set_rate(clk->hw, clk->new_rate, best_parent_rate);
> >
> > with clk->new_rate == 0.
>
> Hmm, I'll look into this. We used to have a check which would at least
> WARN on division by zero, but looks like that was replaced by some
> other code at some point.
>
> Also does your clock have the CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT flag set? If so then
> you could be propagating a rate request of zero up to the next parent,
> which would be a neat trick... however based on the dump that doesn't
> seem to be what is happening.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
> >
> >
> >> [ 21.592732] ====> clk_divider_set_rate rate 0
> >> [ 21.592737] Division by zero in kernel.
> >> [ 21.592747] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Tainted: G W 3.11.0-rc1-00081-g3310d44-dirty #121
> >> [ 21.592773] [<c001c83c>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xf0) from [<c0018a1c>] (show_stack+0x10/0x14)
> >> [ 21.592787] [<c0018a1c>] (show_stack+0x10/0x14) from [<c057400c>] (dump_stack+0x70/0x8c)
> >> [ 21.592803] [<c057400c>] (dump_stack+0x70/0x8c) from [<c02e4154>] (Ldiv0+0x8/0x10)
> >> [ 21.592819] [<c02e4154>] (Ldiv0+0x8/0x10) from [<c048d3e0>] (clk_divider_set_rate+0x2c/0x100)
> >> [ 21.592831] [<c048d3e0>] (clk_divider_set_rate+0x2c/0x100) from [<c048c050>] (clk_change_rate+0x48/0xe0)
> >> [ 21.592841] [<c048c050>] (clk_change_rate+0x48/0xe0) from [<c048c174>] (clk_set_rate+0x8c/0xc0)
> >> [ 21.592855] [<c048c174>] (clk_set_rate+0x8c/0xc0) from [<c042b254>] (nop_usb_xceiv_probe+0x20c/0x304)
> >> [ 21.592869] [<c042b254>] (nop_usb_xceiv_probe+0x20c/0x304) from [<c036b47c>] (platform_drv_probe+0x18/0x1c)
> >> [ 21.592880] [<c036b47c>] (platform_drv_probe+0x18/0x1c) from [<c0369f44>] (really_probe+0x70/0x1f4)
> >> [ 21.592891] [<c0369f44>] (really_probe+0x70/0x1f4) from [<c036a1dc>] (driver_probe_device+0x30/0x48)
> >> [ 21.592901] [<c036a1dc>] (driver_probe_device+0x30/0x48) from [<c036a288>] (__driver_attach+0x94/0x98)
> >> [ 21.592911] [<c036a288>] (__driver_attach+0x94/0x98) from [<c0368748>] (bus_for_each_dev+0x54/0x88)
> >> [ 21.592921] [<c0368748>] (bus_for_each_dev+0x54/0x88) from [<c036972c>] (bus_add_driver+0xdc/0x29c)
> >> [ 21.592930] [<c036972c>] (bus_add_driver+0xdc/0x29c) from [<c036a760>] (driver_register+0x78/0x190)
> >> [ 21.592941] [<c036a760>] (driver_register+0x78/0x190) from [<c00087b0>] (do_one_initcall+0x34/0x164)
> >> [ 21.592954] [<c00087b0>] (do_one_initcall+0x34/0x164) from [<c07b18f4>] (do_basic_setup+0x90/0xc4)
> >> [ 21.592966] [<c07b18f4>] (do_basic_setup+0x90/0xc4) from [<c07b199c>] (kernel_init_freeable+0x74/0x110)
> >> [ 21.592980] [<c07b199c>] (kernel_init_freeable+0x74/0x110) from [<c0567694>] (kernel_init+0x8/0xe4)
> >> [ 21.592992] [<c0567694>] (kernel_init+0x8/0xe4) from [<c0014648>] (ret_from_fork+0x14/0x2c)
> >>
> >> even though driver passed 19.2MHz, best_parent_rate ends up being zero
> >> which triggers the division by zero above.
> >>
> >> cheers
> >>
> >
> >
> > - --
> > You have got to be excited about what you are doing. (L. Lamport)
> >
> > Eduardo Valentin
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
> > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
> >
> > iF4EAREIAAYFAlHlRl8ACgkQCXcVR3XQvP00XQEAtQgDEJLt8OFCJiIhUj46Zq1h
> > PvNq67RSFTRXcq/zHa8A/0IZSPitTXt1TqDfalTKof/DR6n9/W6md8/C2Ovqb59o
> > =AKnu
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
balbi
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: balbi@ti.com (Felipe Balbi)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Division by zero caused by CCF
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 17:04:41 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130730140441.GK28162@radagast> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPtuhTiUsLffRaC+8Gd8me2OYeMUOuFM4CqW3vnXmkkp53P_yg@mail.gmail.com>
Hi,
this is still broken on v3.11-rc3 and Luca got his Blaze (OMAP4) to fail
the same way
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 10:45:38AM -0700, Mike Turquette wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 6:10 AM, Eduardo Valentin
> <eduardo.valentin@ti.com> wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA256
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Adding Mike's correct address.
> >
> > On 16-07-2013 08:37, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> trying to get USB host verified on OMAP5 uEVM with v3.11-rc1. The
> >> clk_set_rate() call ends up in a division by zero, which is quite
> >> interesting provided the driver will only call clk_set_rate() if the
> >> clock is valid and clk_rate is != 0.
> >>
> >>
> >> [ 22.009238] Division by zero in kernel.
> >> [ 22.009250] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Tainted: G W 3.11.0-rc1-00081-g3310d44-dirty #118
> >> [ 22.009275] [<c001c83c>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xf0) from [<c0018a1c>] (show_stack+0x10/0x14)
> >> [ 22.009289] [<c0018a1c>] (show_stack+0x10/0x14) from [<c057403c>] (dump_stack+0x70/0x8c)
> >> [ 22.009304] [<c057403c>] (dump_stack+0x70/0x8c) from [<c02e4154>] (Ldiv0+0x8/0x10)
> >> [ 22.009319] [<c02e4154>] (Ldiv0+0x8/0x10) from [<c048d460>] (clk_divider_set_rate+0x10/0xdc)
> >> [ 22.009331] [<c048d460>] (clk_divider_set_rate+0x10/0xdc) from [<c048c124>] (clk_change_rate+0x38/0xb0)
> >> [ 22.009341] [<c048c124>] (clk_change_rate+0x38/0xb0) from [<c048c20c>] (clk_set_rate+0x70/0xa8)
> >> [ 22.009354] [<c048c20c>] (clk_set_rate+0x70/0xa8) from [<c042b244>] (nop_usb_xceiv_probe+0x1fc/0x2f8)
> >> [ 22.009369] [<c042b244>] (nop_usb_xceiv_probe+0x1fc/0x2f8) from [<c036b47c>] (platform_drv_probe+0x18/0x1c)
> >> [ 22.009380] [<c036b47c>] (platform_drv_probe+0x18/0x1c) from [<c0369f44>] (really_probe+0x70/0x1f4)
> >> [ 22.009390] [<c0369f44>] (really_probe+0x70/0x1f4) from [<c036a1dc>] (driver_probe_device+0x30/0x48)
> >> [ 22.009401] [<c036a1dc>] (driver_probe_device+0x30/0x48) from [<c036a288>] (__driver_attach+0x94/0x98)
> >> [ 22.009411] [<c036a288>] (__driver_attach+0x94/0x98) from [<c0368748>] (bus_for_each_dev+0x54/0x88)
> >> [ 22.009420] [<c0368748>] (bus_for_each_dev+0x54/0x88) from [<c036972c>] (bus_add_driver+0xdc/0x29c)
> >> [ 22.009430] [<c036972c>] (bus_add_driver+0xdc/0x29c) from [<c036a760>] (driver_register+0x78/0x190)
> >> [ 22.009440] [<c036a760>] (driver_register+0x78/0x190) from [<c00087b0>] (do_one_initcall+0x34/0x164)
> >> [ 22.009453] [<c00087b0>] (do_one_initcall+0x34/0x164) from [<c07b18f4>] (do_basic_setup+0x90/0xc4)
> >> [ 22.009466] [<c07b18f4>] (do_basic_setup+0x90/0xc4) from [<c07b199c>] (kernel_init_freeable+0x74/0x110)
> >> [ 22.009478] [<c07b199c>] (kernel_init_freeable+0x74/0x110) from [<c05676c4>] (kernel_init+0x8/0xe4)
> >> [ 22.009491] [<c05676c4>] (kernel_init+0x8/0xe4) from [<c0014648>] (ret_from_fork+0x14/0x2c)
> >>
> >> I believe the problem is the actual division reaching
> >> clk_divider_set_rate().
> >>
> >> drivers/clk/clk-divider.c::clk_divider_set_rate()
> >>
> >> | static int clk_divider_set_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate,
> >> | unsigned long parent_rate)
> >> | {
> >> | struct clk_divider *divider = to_clk_divider(hw);
> >> | unsigned int div, value;
> >> | unsigned long flags = 0;
> >> | u32 val;
> >> |
> >> | div = parent_rate / rate;
> >>
> >> right here, but how come rate would zero provided driver checks for it
> >> as below.
> >>
> >> drivers/usb/phy/phy-nop.c::nop_usb_xceiv_probe()
> >>
> >> | if (!IS_ERR(nop->clk) && clk_rate) {
> >> | err = clk_set_rate(nop->clk, clk_rate);
> >> | if (err) {
> >> | dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Error setting clock rate\n");
> >> | return err;
> >> | }
> >> | }
> >>
> >> I've added a few prints around CCF to try and track what's going on:
> >>
> >> [ 21.592690] ====> nop_usb_xceiv_probe rate 19200000
> >> [ 21.592700] ====> clk_set_rate rate 19200000
> >> [ 21.592707] ====> clk_calc_new_rates rate 19200000
> >> [ 21.592713] ====> clk_divider_round_rate rate 19200000
> >> [ 21.592719] ====> clk_divider_bestdiv rate 19200000
> >> [ 21.592726] ====> clk_change_rate best_parent_rate 0
> >
> > or because we reach:
> > if (clk->ops->set_rate)
> > clk->ops->set_rate(clk->hw, clk->new_rate, best_parent_rate);
> >
> > with clk->new_rate == 0.
>
> Hmm, I'll look into this. We used to have a check which would at least
> WARN on division by zero, but looks like that was replaced by some
> other code at some point.
>
> Also does your clock have the CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT flag set? If so then
> you could be propagating a rate request of zero up to the next parent,
> which would be a neat trick... however based on the dump that doesn't
> seem to be what is happening.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
> >
> >
> >> [ 21.592732] ====> clk_divider_set_rate rate 0
> >> [ 21.592737] Division by zero in kernel.
> >> [ 21.592747] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Tainted: G W 3.11.0-rc1-00081-g3310d44-dirty #121
> >> [ 21.592773] [<c001c83c>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xf0) from [<c0018a1c>] (show_stack+0x10/0x14)
> >> [ 21.592787] [<c0018a1c>] (show_stack+0x10/0x14) from [<c057400c>] (dump_stack+0x70/0x8c)
> >> [ 21.592803] [<c057400c>] (dump_stack+0x70/0x8c) from [<c02e4154>] (Ldiv0+0x8/0x10)
> >> [ 21.592819] [<c02e4154>] (Ldiv0+0x8/0x10) from [<c048d3e0>] (clk_divider_set_rate+0x2c/0x100)
> >> [ 21.592831] [<c048d3e0>] (clk_divider_set_rate+0x2c/0x100) from [<c048c050>] (clk_change_rate+0x48/0xe0)
> >> [ 21.592841] [<c048c050>] (clk_change_rate+0x48/0xe0) from [<c048c174>] (clk_set_rate+0x8c/0xc0)
> >> [ 21.592855] [<c048c174>] (clk_set_rate+0x8c/0xc0) from [<c042b254>] (nop_usb_xceiv_probe+0x20c/0x304)
> >> [ 21.592869] [<c042b254>] (nop_usb_xceiv_probe+0x20c/0x304) from [<c036b47c>] (platform_drv_probe+0x18/0x1c)
> >> [ 21.592880] [<c036b47c>] (platform_drv_probe+0x18/0x1c) from [<c0369f44>] (really_probe+0x70/0x1f4)
> >> [ 21.592891] [<c0369f44>] (really_probe+0x70/0x1f4) from [<c036a1dc>] (driver_probe_device+0x30/0x48)
> >> [ 21.592901] [<c036a1dc>] (driver_probe_device+0x30/0x48) from [<c036a288>] (__driver_attach+0x94/0x98)
> >> [ 21.592911] [<c036a288>] (__driver_attach+0x94/0x98) from [<c0368748>] (bus_for_each_dev+0x54/0x88)
> >> [ 21.592921] [<c0368748>] (bus_for_each_dev+0x54/0x88) from [<c036972c>] (bus_add_driver+0xdc/0x29c)
> >> [ 21.592930] [<c036972c>] (bus_add_driver+0xdc/0x29c) from [<c036a760>] (driver_register+0x78/0x190)
> >> [ 21.592941] [<c036a760>] (driver_register+0x78/0x190) from [<c00087b0>] (do_one_initcall+0x34/0x164)
> >> [ 21.592954] [<c00087b0>] (do_one_initcall+0x34/0x164) from [<c07b18f4>] (do_basic_setup+0x90/0xc4)
> >> [ 21.592966] [<c07b18f4>] (do_basic_setup+0x90/0xc4) from [<c07b199c>] (kernel_init_freeable+0x74/0x110)
> >> [ 21.592980] [<c07b199c>] (kernel_init_freeable+0x74/0x110) from [<c0567694>] (kernel_init+0x8/0xe4)
> >> [ 21.592992] [<c0567694>] (kernel_init+0x8/0xe4) from [<c0014648>] (ret_from_fork+0x14/0x2c)
> >>
> >> even though driver passed 19.2MHz, best_parent_rate ends up being zero
> >> which triggers the division by zero above.
> >>
> >> cheers
> >>
> >
> >
> > - --
> > You have got to be excited about what you are doing. (L. Lamport)
> >
> > Eduardo Valentin
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
> > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
> >
> > iF4EAREIAAYFAlHlRl8ACgkQCXcVR3XQvP00XQEAtQgDEJLt8OFCJiIhUj46Zq1h
> > PvNq67RSFTRXcq/zHa8A/0IZSPitTXt1TqDfalTKof/DR6n9/W6md8/C2Ovqb59o
> > =AKnu
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
balbi
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20130730/1456a858/attachment.sig>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-07-30 14:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-07-16 12:37 Division by zero caused by CCF Felipe Balbi
2013-07-16 12:37 ` Felipe Balbi
2013-07-16 13:10 ` Eduardo Valentin
2013-07-16 13:10 ` Eduardo Valentin
2013-07-16 17:45 ` Mike Turquette
2013-07-16 17:45 ` Mike Turquette
2013-07-30 14:04 ` Felipe Balbi [this message]
2013-07-30 14:04 ` Felipe Balbi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130730140441.GK28162@radagast \
--to=balbi@ti.com \
--cc=coelho@ti.com \
--cc=eduardo.valentin@ti.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mturquette@linaro.org \
--cc=rogerq@ti.com \
--cc=tony@atomide.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.