From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?UTF-8?B?S3Jpc3RpbmEgTWFydMWhZW5rbw==?= Subject: Re: [Regression Resend] mmc: mx28: sd card detection broken since 3.18-rc1 Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 23:50:53 +0200 Message-ID: <5457F8BD.1040800@gmail.com> References: <1747777414.897866.1414878004147.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxbsltgw09.schlund.de> <5456B7B3.60401@gmail.com> <8090335.0rPHov2cpK@kerker> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from mail-wg0-f50.google.com ([74.125.82.50]:60134 "EHLO mail-wg0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751819AbaKCVu7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Nov 2014 16:50:59 -0500 In-Reply-To: <8090335.0rPHov2cpK@kerker> Sender: linux-gpio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org To: Michael Heimpold Cc: Stefan Wahren , Ulf Hansson , Chris Ball , "linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org" , Linus Walleij , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" On 03/11/14 22:49, Michael Heimpold wrote: > Hi, Hi Michael, > Am Montag, 3. November 2014, 01:01:07 schrieben Sie: >> On 01/11/14 23:40, Stefan Wahren wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> i was testing Linux Kernel 3.18-rc2 with my i.MX28 board (I2SE Duckbill) and ran >>> into the problem that the sd card isn't detected from the Kernel at booting >>> (driver: mxs-mmc.c). That results in a endless wait for the root partition >> >> I ran into this issue as well. Seems that a card-detect flag >> (MMC_CAP2_CD_ACTIVE_HIGH) can currently be set based on an >> uninitialized variable, which can lead to the card being reported as >> not present. This patch fixes it for me: >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/host.c b/drivers/mmc/core/host.c >> index 03c53b72a2d6..f0e187682d3b 100644 >> --- a/drivers/mmc/core/host.c >> +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/host.c >> @@ -311,7 +311,7 @@ int mmc_of_parse(struct mmc_host *host) >> struct device_node *np; >> u32 bus_width; >> int len, ret; >> - bool cap_invert, gpio_invert; >> + bool cap_invert, gpio_invert = false; >> > > sorry, but I don't understand how your patch fixes the problem. > > First use of the gpio_invert bool is in line 370/371 within mmc_gpiod_request_cd > (re-wrapped into a single line here for better reading): > > -snip- > ret = mmc_gpiod_request_cd(host, "cd", 0, true, 0, &gpio_invert); > -snap- > > A pointer to the bool is passed, and inside mmc_gpiod_request_cd (drivers/mmc/core/slot-gpio.c, > line 322), always a value is assigned: > > -snip- > if (gpio_invert) > *gpio_invert = !gpiod_is_active_low(desc); > -snap- > > So returning to mmc_of_parse, the bool should always have an initialized value. > Apart from some error handling, the bool is used immediately in the xor expression > and results in setting MMC_CAP2_CD_ACTIVE_HIGH bit, or not. > > I also cannot see a code path, where gpio_invert is used without a call to mmc_gpiod_request_cd. > > Would be nice, if you could point me to what I'm missing. mmc_gpiod_request_cd can return without ever reaching the line where the value is assigned to gpio_invert: desc = devm_gpiod_get_index(host->parent, con_id, idx, GPIOD_IN); if (IS_ERR(desc)) return PTR_ERR(desc); This can happen when the host controller doesn't use a GPIO for card detection (but instead uses a dedicated pin). In this case devm_gpiod_get_index will return -ENOENT. >> if (!host->parent || !host->parent->of_node) >> return 0; >> @@ -401,6 +401,7 @@ int mmc_of_parse(struct mmc_host *host) >> else >> cap_invert = false; >> >> + gpio_invert = false; >> ret = mmc_gpiod_request_ro(host, "wp", 0, false, 0, &gpio_invert); > > Same here. The functions always assigns a value when a pointer is given. Same thing, the function can return before gpio_invert is ever assigned to. > (And this change is unrelated to the reporters problem, so should be fixed with a > dedicated patch.) Since both flags are set wrong for the exact same reason, and they're both regressions in 3.18, I thought it would make sense to fix them both in one patch. (Especially since I think it's cleaner to split the gpio_invert variable into cd_gpio_invert and ro_gpio_invert, and I was going to do that in the patch I'd send.) Let me know if you still think I should send separate patches for them. Thanks for the review, Kristina