Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: dts: sun8i: Adjust power key nodes

Guenter Roeck
2022-02-15T22:20:41Z

On 2/15/22 12:34, Jernej Škrabec wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Dne torek, 15. februar 2022 ob 01:27:32 CET je Guenter Roeck napisal(a):
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 05:55:10PM +0100, Jernej Skrabec wrote:
>>> Several H3 and one H2+ board have power key nodes, which are slightly
>>> off. Some are missing wakeup-source property and some have BTN_0 code
>>> assigned instead of KEY_POWER.
>>>
>>> Adjust them, so they can function as intended by designer.
>>>
>>> Co-developed-by: Michael Klein <michael@fossekall.de>
>>> Signed-off-by: Michael Klein <michael@fossekall.de>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@gmail.com>
>>
>> This patch results in the following traceback when rebooting an
>> orangepi-pc qemu emulation.
>>
>> [ 30.899594]
>> [ 30.899685] ============================================
>> [ 30.899757] WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
>> [ 30.899938] 5.17.0-rc3-00394-gc849047c2473 #1 Not tainted
>> [ 30.900055] --------------------------------------------
>> [ 30.900124] init/307 is trying to acquire lock:
>> [ 30.900246] c2dfe27c (&irq_desc_lock_class){-.-.}-{2:2}, at:
> __irq_get_desc_lock+0x58/0xa0
>> [ 30.900900]
>> [ 30.900900] but task is already holding lock:
>> [ 30.900974] c3c0ac7c (&irq_desc_lock_class){-.-.}-{2:2}, at:
> __irq_get_desc_lock+0x58/0xa0
>> [ 30.901101]
>> [ 30.901101] other info that might help us debug this:
>> [ 30.901188] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>> [ 30.901188]
>> [ 30.901262] CPU0
>> [ 30.901301] ----
>> [ 30.901339] lock(&irq_desc_lock_class);
>> [ 30.901411] lock(&irq_desc_lock_class);
>> [ 30.901480]
>> [ 30.901480] *** DEADLOCK ***
>> [ 30.901480]
>> [ 30.901554] May be due to missing lock nesting notation
>> [ 30.901554]
>> [ 30.901657] 4 locks held by init/307:
>> [ 30.901724] #0: c1f29f18 (system_transition_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at:
> __do_sys_reboot+0x90/0x23c
>> [ 30.901889] #1: c20f7760 (&dev->mutex){....}-{3:3}, at:
> device_shutdown+0xf4/0x224
>> [ 30.902016] #2: c2e804d8 (&dev->mutex){....}-{3:3}, at:
> device_shutdown+0x104/0x224
>> [ 30.902138] #3: c3c0ac7c (&irq_desc_lock_class){-.-.}-{2:2}, at:
> __irq_get_desc_lock+0x58/0xa0
>> [ 30.902281]
>> [ 30.902281] stack backtrace:
>> [ 30.902462] CPU: 0 PID: 307 Comm: init Not tainted 5.17.0-rc3-00394-
> gc849047c2473 #1
>> [ 30.902572] Hardware name: Allwinner sun8i Family
>> [ 30.902781] unwind_backtrace from show_stack+0x10/0x14
>> [ 30.902895] show_stack from dump_stack_lvl+0x68/0x90
>> [ 30.902970] dump_stack_lvl from __lock_acquire+0x1680/0x31a0
>> [ 30.903047] __lock_acquire from lock_acquire+0x148/0x3dc
>> [ 30.903118] lock_acquire from _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x50/0x6c
>> [ 30.903197] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave from __irq_get_desc_lock+0x58/0xa0
>> [ 30.903282] __irq_get_desc_lock from irq_set_irq_wake+0x2c/0x19c
>> [ 30.903366] irq_set_irq_wake from irq_set_irq_wake+0x13c/0x19c
>> [ 30.903442] irq_set_irq_wake from gpio_keys_suspend+0x80/0x1a4
>> [ 30.903523] gpio_keys_suspend from gpio_keys_shutdown+0x10/0x2c
>> [ 30.903603] gpio_keys_shutdown from device_shutdown+0x180/0x224
>> [ 30.903685] device_shutdown from __do_sys_reboot+0x134/0x23c
>> [ 30.903764] __do_sys_reboot from ret_fast_syscall+0x0/0x1c
>> [ 30.903894] Exception stack(0xc584ffa8 to 0xc584fff0)
>> [ 30.904013] ffa0: 01234567 000c623f fee1dead 28121969
> 01234567 00000000
>> [ 30.904117] ffc0: 01234567 000c623f 00000001 00000058 000d85c0 00000000
> 00000000 00000000
>> [ 30.904213] ffe0: 000d8298 be84ddf4 000918bc b6eb0edc
>> [ 30.905189] reboot: Restarting system
>>
>> The warning is no longer seen after reverting this patch.
>>
>> The problem exists but is not seen in v5.17-rc4 because a bug in commit
>> 8df89a7cbc63 ("pinctrl-sunxi: don't call pinctrl_gpio_direction()")
>> hides it. That problem is fixed with commit 3c5412cdec9f ("pinctrl-sunxi:
>> sunxi_pinctrl_gpio_direction_in/output: use correct offset") in linux-next,
>> and the traceback is seen there.
>
> Hm... These DT changes were tested with many users on older kernels for some
> time now and new properties conform to bindings. Should we revert pinctrl
> changes?
>

I don't think those changes were tested with orangepi-pc on real hardware.
Maybe I didn't explain it clearly enough: Commit 8df89a7cbc63 does _not_
introduce the problem. It hides the problem. Reverting commit 8df89a7cbc63
won't help but result in exactly the same backtrace (I tried).

Some more details: This commit introduces "wakeup-source;" to various
orangepi-pc nodes. This triggers in a call to sunxi_pinctrl_irq_set_wake(),
which did not happen before and which may result in the traceback.

Guenter