From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C635C369D9 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 2025 08:35:29 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=Qwk49apGdChV5JZGiqEylFepdwmcqjzUOJTqLuSzy70=; b=0A3ZVYh22N27WqKHGGhhj3uc+F bkxC0vrqeRInbZi3DV9ppEJEPNk3D9XQS5Gq6WZf6sj0FmbE3YH8yGLeQIRZobjUG8GCZ20khMESP yldPLFGL9GN5Lo0myWuU2Mbc09D5aedQIN+NLMTtvavQlsrGFzYRYR+ELFWWiM3ZGyCrory+NvAr3 xtzGUX8Ceny8e9OSfSJHv2hy+AYDlgTTl1sfSYaM2FlNSPOzhcwpQNh3J0l1WgsdTzUlc/MLzjOhf KW79UwCFO8SWcCwcX0lyAW1Rqtl1zB+t15deC2X1x9fXvxBq7w6EzQVTWLAWTN9LBUrzX0F6zEeFf Qsl0T/0Q==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1uA2uV-0000000CAkV-25oJ; Wed, 30 Apr 2025 08:35:19 +0000 Received: from mail11.truemail.it ([2001:4b7e:0:8::81]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1uA2NZ-0000000C4vs-3vr0 for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 30 Apr 2025 08:01:20 +0000 Received: from francesco-nb (93-49-2-63.ip317.fastwebnet.it [93.49.2.63]) by mail11.truemail.it (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 35DEE1F969; Wed, 30 Apr 2025 10:01:13 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dolcini.it; s=default; t=1746000073; bh=Qwk49apGdChV5JZGiqEylFepdwmcqjzUOJTqLuSzy70=; h=From:To:Subject; b=qza0LVi/m2HVbgsx5wPZ2FtmT7C3PHPi6mEHLul28C5RUkukL9Y99CETWlrSzEmYT /onAc2BzSyL8esA5FVRV2j2LWwUKd2IWD6u7rXhhzNH0VmmOXFQH2tCikLIi1785PS VBS7t4lAzvGefP/J42axieMW7vhXTrosZlnRfiYKxjAriW2SRdQRhVehSmDJH5Yrjn r36yWuEvvaeGKi6TWZs6Fjvddh6La7HD5SL8yBl03FnPLQFfF4uzlku0g2iDcY2em8 S+5AafpdlscJJyxwJRDEC/fQosP+ZFDyeFsR1K/9oePSqI8yxays62bWn5m+tugHYZ V/w3WsBIFGUYA== Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2025 10:01:09 +0200 From: Francesco Dolcini To: Andreas Kemnade Cc: Francesco Dolcini , Jerome Neanne , Shree Ramamoorthy , Mark Brown , Nishanth Menon , Vignesh Raghavendra , Tero Kristo , Aaro Koskinen , Kevin Hilman , Roger Quadros , Tony Lindgren , Liam Girdwood , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: tps65219/am62p kernel oops Message-ID: <20250430080109.GA65078@francesco-nb> References: <20250429185240.6a7644bf@akair> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250429185240.6a7644bf@akair> X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20250430_010118_868475_643140B6 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 12.94 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 06:52:40PM +0200, Andreas Kemnade wrote: > Am Tue, 29 Apr 2025 15:21:19 +0200 > schrieb Francesco Dolcini : > > > Hello all, > > while working on adding support in mainline for a new board based on TI > > AM62P SoC I noticed the following Kernel Oops. > > > > This oops was reproduced running current Linux > > master, 6.15.0-rc4+, ca91b9500108d4cf083a635c2e11c884d5dd20ea, but I was able > > to reproduce the same with 6.14.4. > > > > [...] > > [ +0.000022] Call trace: > > [ +0.000011] regulator_notifier_call_chain+0x20/0xa4 (P) > > [ +0.000018] tps65219_regulator_irq_handler+0x34/0x80 > > wild guessing: maybe because irqdata->rdev is not initalized in > _probe()? At least I do not see where it would be initialized. your wild guess seems correct, I'll send a proper patch with your suggested-by after doing a couple of more tests, thanks. Francesco