| Message ID | 7d503c3dcac2b3ef29d4122a74eacfce142a8f98.1588069418.git.cristian.ciocaltea@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/1] dma: actions: Fix lockdep splat for owl-dma | expand |
Hi, On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 01:56:12PM +0300, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote: > When the kernel is build with lockdep support and the owl-dma driver is > used, the following message is shown: > > [ 2.496939] INFO: trying to register non-static key. > [ 2.501889] the code is fine but needs lockdep annotation. > [ 2.507357] turning off the locking correctness validator. > [ 2.512834] CPU: 0 PID: 12 Comm: kworker/0:1 Not tainted 5.6.3+ #15 > [ 2.519084] Hardware name: Generic DT based system > [ 2.523878] Workqueue: events_freezable mmc_rescan > [ 2.528681] [<801127f0>] (unwind_backtrace) from [<8010da58>] (show_stack+0x10/0x14) > [ 2.536420] [<8010da58>] (show_stack) from [<8080fbe8>] (dump_stack+0xb4/0xe0) > [ 2.543645] [<8080fbe8>] (dump_stack) from [<8017efa4>] (register_lock_class+0x6f0/0x718) > [ 2.551816] [<8017efa4>] (register_lock_class) from [<8017b7d0>] (__lock_acquire+0x78/0x25f0) > [ 2.560330] [<8017b7d0>] (__lock_acquire) from [<8017e5e4>] (lock_acquire+0xd8/0x1f4) > [ 2.568159] [<8017e5e4>] (lock_acquire) from [<80831fb0>] (_raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x3c/0x50) > [ 2.576589] [<80831fb0>] (_raw_spin_lock_irqsave) from [<8051b5fc>] (owl_dma_issue_pending+0xbc/0x120) > [ 2.585884] [<8051b5fc>] (owl_dma_issue_pending) from [<80668cbc>] (owl_mmc_request+0x1b0/0x390) > [ 2.594655] [<80668cbc>] (owl_mmc_request) from [<80650ce0>] (mmc_start_request+0x94/0xbc) > [ 2.602906] [<80650ce0>] (mmc_start_request) from [<80650ec0>] (mmc_wait_for_req+0x64/0xd0) > [ 2.611245] [<80650ec0>] (mmc_wait_for_req) from [<8065aa10>] (mmc_app_send_scr+0x10c/0x144) > [ 2.619669] [<8065aa10>] (mmc_app_send_scr) from [<80659b3c>] (mmc_sd_setup_card+0x4c/0x318) > [ 2.628092] [<80659b3c>] (mmc_sd_setup_card) from [<80659f0c>] (mmc_sd_init_card+0x104/0x430) > [ 2.636601] [<80659f0c>] (mmc_sd_init_card) from [<8065a3e0>] (mmc_attach_sd+0xcc/0x16c) > [ 2.644678] [<8065a3e0>] (mmc_attach_sd) from [<8065301c>] (mmc_rescan+0x3ac/0x40c) > [ 2.652332] [<8065301c>] (mmc_rescan) from [<80143244>] (process_one_work+0x2d8/0x780) > [ 2.660239] [<80143244>] (process_one_work) from [<80143730>] (worker_thread+0x44/0x598) > [ 2.668323] [<80143730>] (worker_thread) from [<8014b5f8>] (kthread+0x148/0x150) > [ 2.675708] [<8014b5f8>] (kthread) from [<801010b4>] (ret_from_fork+0x14/0x20) > [ 2.682912] Exception stack(0xee8fdfb0 to 0xee8fdff8) > [ 2.687954] dfa0: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 > [ 2.696118] dfc0: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 > [ 2.704277] dfe0: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000013 00000000 > > The required fix is to use spin_lock_init() on the pchan lock before > attempting to call any spin_lock_irqsave() in owl_dma_get_pchan(). > Right, this is a bug. But while looking at the code now, I feel that we don't need 'pchan->lock'. The idea was to protect 'pchan->vchan', but I think 'od->lock' is the better candidate for that since it already protects it in 'owl_dma_terminate_pchan'. So I'd be happy if you remove the lock from 'pchan' and just directly use the one in 'od'. Out of curiosity, on which platform you're testing this? Thanks, Mani > Signed-off-by: Cristian Ciocaltea <cristian.ciocaltea@gmail.com> > --- > drivers/dma/owl-dma.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/dma/owl-dma.c b/drivers/dma/owl-dma.c > index c683051257fd..d9d0f0488e70 100644 > --- a/drivers/dma/owl-dma.c > +++ b/drivers/dma/owl-dma.c > @@ -1131,6 +1131,7 @@ static int owl_dma_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > pchan->id = i; > pchan->base = od->base + OWL_DMA_CHAN_BASE(i); > + spin_lock_init(&pchan->lock); > } > > /* Init virtual channel */ > -- > 2.26.2 >
On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 10:19:21PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 01:56:12PM +0300, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote: > > When the kernel is build with lockdep support and the owl-dma driver is > > used, the following message is shown: > > > > [ 2.496939] INFO: trying to register non-static key. > > [ 2.501889] the code is fine but needs lockdep annotation. > > [ 2.507357] turning off the locking correctness validator. > > [ 2.512834] CPU: 0 PID: 12 Comm: kworker/0:1 Not tainted 5.6.3+ #15 > > [ 2.519084] Hardware name: Generic DT based system > > [ 2.523878] Workqueue: events_freezable mmc_rescan > > [ 2.528681] [<801127f0>] (unwind_backtrace) from [<8010da58>] (show_stack+0x10/0x14) > > [ 2.536420] [<8010da58>] (show_stack) from [<8080fbe8>] (dump_stack+0xb4/0xe0) > > [ 2.543645] [<8080fbe8>] (dump_stack) from [<8017efa4>] (register_lock_class+0x6f0/0x718) > > [ 2.551816] [<8017efa4>] (register_lock_class) from [<8017b7d0>] (__lock_acquire+0x78/0x25f0) > > [ 2.560330] [<8017b7d0>] (__lock_acquire) from [<8017e5e4>] (lock_acquire+0xd8/0x1f4) > > [ 2.568159] [<8017e5e4>] (lock_acquire) from [<80831fb0>] (_raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x3c/0x50) > > [ 2.576589] [<80831fb0>] (_raw_spin_lock_irqsave) from [<8051b5fc>] (owl_dma_issue_pending+0xbc/0x120) > > [ 2.585884] [<8051b5fc>] (owl_dma_issue_pending) from [<80668cbc>] (owl_mmc_request+0x1b0/0x390) > > [ 2.594655] [<80668cbc>] (owl_mmc_request) from [<80650ce0>] (mmc_start_request+0x94/0xbc) > > [ 2.602906] [<80650ce0>] (mmc_start_request) from [<80650ec0>] (mmc_wait_for_req+0x64/0xd0) > > [ 2.611245] [<80650ec0>] (mmc_wait_for_req) from [<8065aa10>] (mmc_app_send_scr+0x10c/0x144) > > [ 2.619669] [<8065aa10>] (mmc_app_send_scr) from [<80659b3c>] (mmc_sd_setup_card+0x4c/0x318) > > [ 2.628092] [<80659b3c>] (mmc_sd_setup_card) from [<80659f0c>] (mmc_sd_init_card+0x104/0x430) > > [ 2.636601] [<80659f0c>] (mmc_sd_init_card) from [<8065a3e0>] (mmc_attach_sd+0xcc/0x16c) > > [ 2.644678] [<8065a3e0>] (mmc_attach_sd) from [<8065301c>] (mmc_rescan+0x3ac/0x40c) > > [ 2.652332] [<8065301c>] (mmc_rescan) from [<80143244>] (process_one_work+0x2d8/0x780) > > [ 2.660239] [<80143244>] (process_one_work) from [<80143730>] (worker_thread+0x44/0x598) > > [ 2.668323] [<80143730>] (worker_thread) from [<8014b5f8>] (kthread+0x148/0x150) > > [ 2.675708] [<8014b5f8>] (kthread) from [<801010b4>] (ret_from_fork+0x14/0x20) > > [ 2.682912] Exception stack(0xee8fdfb0 to 0xee8fdff8) > > [ 2.687954] dfa0: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 > > [ 2.696118] dfc0: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 > > [ 2.704277] dfe0: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000013 00000000 > > > > The required fix is to use spin_lock_init() on the pchan lock before > > attempting to call any spin_lock_irqsave() in owl_dma_get_pchan(). > > > > Right, this is a bug. But while looking at the code now, I feel that we don't > need 'pchan->lock'. The idea was to protect 'pchan->vchan', but I think > 'od->lock' is the better candidate for that since it already protects it in > 'owl_dma_terminate_pchan'. > > So I'd be happy if you remove the lock from 'pchan' and just directly use the > one in 'od'. > > Out of curiosity, on which platform you're testing this? > > Thanks, > Mani > Hi Mani, Totally agree, I will send a new patch revision as soon as I do some more testing. I'm currently experimenting on an Actions S500 based board (Roseapple Pi) trying to extend, if possible, the existing mainline support for those SoCs. I don't have much progress so far, since I started quite recently and I also lack experience in the kernel development area, but I do my best to come back with more patches once I get a consistent functionality. Thanks a lot for your support, Cristi > > Signed-off-by: Cristian Ciocaltea <cristian.ciocaltea@gmail.com> > > --- > > drivers/dma/owl-dma.c | 1 + > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/dma/owl-dma.c b/drivers/dma/owl-dma.c > > index c683051257fd..d9d0f0488e70 100644 > > --- a/drivers/dma/owl-dma.c > > +++ b/drivers/dma/owl-dma.c > > @@ -1131,6 +1131,7 @@ static int owl_dma_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > > > pchan->id = i; > > pchan->base = od->base + OWL_DMA_CHAN_BASE(i); > > + spin_lock_init(&pchan->lock); > > } > > > > /* Init virtual channel */ > > -- > > 2.26.2 > >
On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 09:11:15PM +0300, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote: > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 10:19:21PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 01:56:12PM +0300, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote: > > > When the kernel is build with lockdep support and the owl-dma driver is > > > used, the following message is shown: > > > > > > [ 2.496939] INFO: trying to register non-static key. > > > [ 2.501889] the code is fine but needs lockdep annotation. > > > [ 2.507357] turning off the locking correctness validator. > > > [ 2.512834] CPU: 0 PID: 12 Comm: kworker/0:1 Not tainted 5.6.3+ #15 > > > [ 2.519084] Hardware name: Generic DT based system > > > [ 2.523878] Workqueue: events_freezable mmc_rescan > > > [ 2.528681] [<801127f0>] (unwind_backtrace) from [<8010da58>] (show_stack+0x10/0x14) > > > [ 2.536420] [<8010da58>] (show_stack) from [<8080fbe8>] (dump_stack+0xb4/0xe0) > > > [ 2.543645] [<8080fbe8>] (dump_stack) from [<8017efa4>] (register_lock_class+0x6f0/0x718) > > > [ 2.551816] [<8017efa4>] (register_lock_class) from [<8017b7d0>] (__lock_acquire+0x78/0x25f0) > > > [ 2.560330] [<8017b7d0>] (__lock_acquire) from [<8017e5e4>] (lock_acquire+0xd8/0x1f4) > > > [ 2.568159] [<8017e5e4>] (lock_acquire) from [<80831fb0>] (_raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x3c/0x50) > > > [ 2.576589] [<80831fb0>] (_raw_spin_lock_irqsave) from [<8051b5fc>] (owl_dma_issue_pending+0xbc/0x120) > > > [ 2.585884] [<8051b5fc>] (owl_dma_issue_pending) from [<80668cbc>] (owl_mmc_request+0x1b0/0x390) > > > [ 2.594655] [<80668cbc>] (owl_mmc_request) from [<80650ce0>] (mmc_start_request+0x94/0xbc) > > > [ 2.602906] [<80650ce0>] (mmc_start_request) from [<80650ec0>] (mmc_wait_for_req+0x64/0xd0) > > > [ 2.611245] [<80650ec0>] (mmc_wait_for_req) from [<8065aa10>] (mmc_app_send_scr+0x10c/0x144) > > > [ 2.619669] [<8065aa10>] (mmc_app_send_scr) from [<80659b3c>] (mmc_sd_setup_card+0x4c/0x318) > > > [ 2.628092] [<80659b3c>] (mmc_sd_setup_card) from [<80659f0c>] (mmc_sd_init_card+0x104/0x430) > > > [ 2.636601] [<80659f0c>] (mmc_sd_init_card) from [<8065a3e0>] (mmc_attach_sd+0xcc/0x16c) > > > [ 2.644678] [<8065a3e0>] (mmc_attach_sd) from [<8065301c>] (mmc_rescan+0x3ac/0x40c) > > > [ 2.652332] [<8065301c>] (mmc_rescan) from [<80143244>] (process_one_work+0x2d8/0x780) > > > [ 2.660239] [<80143244>] (process_one_work) from [<80143730>] (worker_thread+0x44/0x598) > > > [ 2.668323] [<80143730>] (worker_thread) from [<8014b5f8>] (kthread+0x148/0x150) > > > [ 2.675708] [<8014b5f8>] (kthread) from [<801010b4>] (ret_from_fork+0x14/0x20) > > > [ 2.682912] Exception stack(0xee8fdfb0 to 0xee8fdff8) > > > [ 2.687954] dfa0: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 > > > [ 2.696118] dfc0: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 > > > [ 2.704277] dfe0: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000013 00000000 > > > > > > The required fix is to use spin_lock_init() on the pchan lock before > > > attempting to call any spin_lock_irqsave() in owl_dma_get_pchan(). > > > > > > > Right, this is a bug. But while looking at the code now, I feel that we don't > > need 'pchan->lock'. The idea was to protect 'pchan->vchan', but I think > > 'od->lock' is the better candidate for that since it already protects it in > > 'owl_dma_terminate_pchan'. > > > > So I'd be happy if you remove the lock from 'pchan' and just directly use the > > one in 'od'. > > > > Out of curiosity, on which platform you're testing this? > > > > Thanks, > > Mani > > > > Hi Mani, > > Totally agree, I will send a new patch revision as soon as I do some > more testing. > Coo, thanks! > I'm currently experimenting on an Actions S500 based board (Roseapple Pi) > trying to extend, if possible, the existing mainline support for those > SoCs. Awesome! It's great to see that Actions platform is seeing some attention these days :) > I don't have much progress so far, since I started quite recently > and I also lack experience in the kernel development area, but I do my > best to come back with more patches once I get a consistent functionality. > No worries. Feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions. There is a lot of work to do and for sure it will be a good learning curve. We do have an IRC channel (##linux-actions) for quick discussions. Fee free to join! Thanks, Mani > Thanks a lot for your support, > Cristi > > > > Signed-off-by: Cristian Ciocaltea <cristian.ciocaltea@gmail.com> > > > --- > > > drivers/dma/owl-dma.c | 1 + > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/dma/owl-dma.c b/drivers/dma/owl-dma.c > > > index c683051257fd..d9d0f0488e70 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/dma/owl-dma.c > > > +++ b/drivers/dma/owl-dma.c > > > @@ -1131,6 +1131,7 @@ static int owl_dma_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > > > > > pchan->id = i; > > > pchan->base = od->base + OWL_DMA_CHAN_BASE(i); > > > + spin_lock_init(&pchan->lock); > > > } > > > > > > /* Init virtual channel */ > > > -- > > > 2.26.2 > > >
Am 28.04.20 um 20:18 schrieb Manivannan Sadhasivam: > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 09:11:15PM +0300, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 10:19:21PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: >>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 01:56:12PM +0300, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote: >>>> When the kernel is build with lockdep support and the owl-dma driver is >>>> used, the following message is shown: [...] >>>> The required fix is to use spin_lock_init() on the pchan lock before >>>> attempting to call any spin_lock_irqsave() in owl_dma_get_pchan(). >>> >>> Right, this is a bug. But while looking at the code now, I feel that we don't >>> need 'pchan->lock'. The idea was to protect 'pchan->vchan', but I think >>> 'od->lock' is the better candidate for that since it already protects it in >>> 'owl_dma_terminate_pchan'. >>> >>> So I'd be happy if you remove the lock from 'pchan' and just directly use the >>> one in 'od'. >>> >>> Out of curiosity, on which platform you're testing this? >> >> Totally agree, I will send a new patch revision as soon as I do some >> more testing. > > Coo[l], thanks! > >> I'm currently experimenting on an Actions S500 based board (Roseapple Pi) >> trying to extend, if possible, the existing mainline support for those >> SoCs. > > Awesome! It's great to see that Actions platform is seeing some attention > these days :) > >> I don't have much progress so far, since I started quite recently >> and I also lack experience in the kernel development area, but I do my >> best to come back with more patches once I get a consistent functionality. > > No worries. Feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions. There is > a lot of work to do and for sure it will be a good learning curve. > > We do have an IRC channel (##linux-actions) for quick discussions. Fee[l] free > to join! Please also CC the linux-actions mailing list on any patches: https://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-actions Mani, do you have a 5.7-rc1 tree set up or should I queue patches this round? It still seems missing in MAINTAINERS, and then there's Matheus' patches in review. Thanks, Andreas
Hi Andreas, On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 10:36:01AM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote: > Am 28.04.20 um 20:18 schrieb Manivannan Sadhasivam: > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 09:11:15PM +0300, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 10:19:21PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 01:56:12PM +0300, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote: > > > > > When the kernel is build with lockdep support and the owl-dma driver is > > > > > used, the following message is shown: > [...] > > > > > The required fix is to use spin_lock_init() on the pchan lock before > > > > > attempting to call any spin_lock_irqsave() in owl_dma_get_pchan(). > > > > > > > > Right, this is a bug. But while looking at the code now, I feel that we don't > > > > need 'pchan->lock'. The idea was to protect 'pchan->vchan', but I think > > > > 'od->lock' is the better candidate for that since it already protects it in > > > > 'owl_dma_terminate_pchan'. > > > > > > > > So I'd be happy if you remove the lock from 'pchan' and just directly use the > > > > one in 'od'. > > > > > > > > Out of curiosity, on which platform you're testing this? > > > > > > Totally agree, I will send a new patch revision as soon as I do some > > > more testing. > > > > Coo[l], thanks! > > > > > I'm currently experimenting on an Actions S500 based board (Roseapple Pi) > > > trying to extend, if possible, the existing mainline support for those > > > SoCs. > > > > Awesome! It's great to see that Actions platform is seeing some attention > > these days :) > > > > > I don't have much progress so far, since I started quite recently > > > and I also lack experience in the kernel development area, but I do my > > > best to come back with more patches once I get a consistent functionality. > > > > No worries. Feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions. There is > > a lot of work to do and for sure it will be a good learning curve. > > > > We do have an IRC channel (##linux-actions) for quick discussions. Fee[l] free > > to join! > > Please also CC the linux-actions mailing list on any patches: > > https://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-actions > > Mani, do you have a 5.7-rc1 tree set up or should I queue patches this > round? I haven't set up the branch. You can do the maintainership duties for this cycle. > It still seems missing in MAINTAINERS, and then there's Matheus' > patches in review. > Yeah, the MAINTAINERS patch has fallen through cracks: [PATCH v2 6/6] MAINTAINERS: Add linux-actions mailing list for Actions Semi I did this as a part of S500 clk series. Feel free to pick it up. Thanks, Mani > Thanks, > Andreas > > -- > SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH > Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany > GF: Felix Imendörffer > HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg)
diff --git a/drivers/dma/owl-dma.c b/drivers/dma/owl-dma.c index c683051257fd..d9d0f0488e70 100644 --- a/drivers/dma/owl-dma.c +++ b/drivers/dma/owl-dma.c @@ -1131,6 +1131,7 @@ static int owl_dma_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) pchan->id = i; pchan->base = od->base + OWL_DMA_CHAN_BASE(i); + spin_lock_init(&pchan->lock); } /* Init virtual channel */
When the kernel is build with lockdep support and the owl-dma driver is used, the following message is shown: [ 2.496939] INFO: trying to register non-static key. [ 2.501889] the code is fine but needs lockdep annotation. [ 2.507357] turning off the locking correctness validator. [ 2.512834] CPU: 0 PID: 12 Comm: kworker/0:1 Not tainted 5.6.3+ #15 [ 2.519084] Hardware name: Generic DT based system [ 2.523878] Workqueue: events_freezable mmc_rescan [ 2.528681] [<801127f0>] (unwind_backtrace) from [<8010da58>] (show_stack+0x10/0x14) [ 2.536420] [<8010da58>] (show_stack) from [<8080fbe8>] (dump_stack+0xb4/0xe0) [ 2.543645] [<8080fbe8>] (dump_stack) from [<8017efa4>] (register_lock_class+0x6f0/0x718) [ 2.551816] [<8017efa4>] (register_lock_class) from [<8017b7d0>] (__lock_acquire+0x78/0x25f0) [ 2.560330] [<8017b7d0>] (__lock_acquire) from [<8017e5e4>] (lock_acquire+0xd8/0x1f4) [ 2.568159] [<8017e5e4>] (lock_acquire) from [<80831fb0>] (_raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x3c/0x50) [ 2.576589] [<80831fb0>] (_raw_spin_lock_irqsave) from [<8051b5fc>] (owl_dma_issue_pending+0xbc/0x120) [ 2.585884] [<8051b5fc>] (owl_dma_issue_pending) from [<80668cbc>] (owl_mmc_request+0x1b0/0x390) [ 2.594655] [<80668cbc>] (owl_mmc_request) from [<80650ce0>] (mmc_start_request+0x94/0xbc) [ 2.602906] [<80650ce0>] (mmc_start_request) from [<80650ec0>] (mmc_wait_for_req+0x64/0xd0) [ 2.611245] [<80650ec0>] (mmc_wait_for_req) from [<8065aa10>] (mmc_app_send_scr+0x10c/0x144) [ 2.619669] [<8065aa10>] (mmc_app_send_scr) from [<80659b3c>] (mmc_sd_setup_card+0x4c/0x318) [ 2.628092] [<80659b3c>] (mmc_sd_setup_card) from [<80659f0c>] (mmc_sd_init_card+0x104/0x430) [ 2.636601] [<80659f0c>] (mmc_sd_init_card) from [<8065a3e0>] (mmc_attach_sd+0xcc/0x16c) [ 2.644678] [<8065a3e0>] (mmc_attach_sd) from [<8065301c>] (mmc_rescan+0x3ac/0x40c) [ 2.652332] [<8065301c>] (mmc_rescan) from [<80143244>] (process_one_work+0x2d8/0x780) [ 2.660239] [<80143244>] (process_one_work) from [<80143730>] (worker_thread+0x44/0x598) [ 2.668323] [<80143730>] (worker_thread) from [<8014b5f8>] (kthread+0x148/0x150) [ 2.675708] [<8014b5f8>] (kthread) from [<801010b4>] (ret_from_fork+0x14/0x20) [ 2.682912] Exception stack(0xee8fdfb0 to 0xee8fdff8) [ 2.687954] dfa0: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 [ 2.696118] dfc0: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 [ 2.704277] dfe0: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000013 00000000 The required fix is to use spin_lock_init() on the pchan lock before attempting to call any spin_lock_irqsave() in owl_dma_get_pchan(). Signed-off-by: Cristian Ciocaltea <cristian.ciocaltea@gmail.com> --- drivers/dma/owl-dma.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)