Hi Prashant, I do not think it is present. Thinking about it, I do not think it shall be an issue on any released device as it will have either a firmware which wouldn't even trigger the typec probe or the one after the hierarchy fix. Likely I just got a firmware which was somewhere in between those two (As I did some unrelated FW testing). So, yes, probably putting this upstream is not necessary, though IMO more sanity checks - especially on non-critical run-once paths - are always better than having a kernel panic lingering around the corner, not like I am insisting on pushing the patch though with all the info, up to Enric. Cheers, Daniil
On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 10:56 AM Prashant Malani <pmal...@chromium.org> wrote: > > Hi Daniil, > > On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 10:15:18AM +1000, Daniil Lunev wrote: > > On the official revision of coreboot for hatch it doesn't even try to > > load Type C. However it gives some warning messages from > > cros-usbpd-notify-acpi about EC, So I wonder why the check of the same > > type is not appropriate in the typec driver? > > I think the difference is that GOOG0003 is already present on shipped / > official versions of coreboot (so not having that check can cause > existing release images/devices to crash), whereas for GOOG0014 that is / > isn't the case. > > Is GOOG0014 present on the official release coreboot image for this > device? If so, what's its path (/sys/bus/acpi/devices/<HID>/path) ? > > Best regards, > > -Prashant > > > > ../chrome/cros_usbpd_notify.c > > > > /* Get the EC device pointer needed to talk to the EC. */ > > ec_dev = dev_get_drvdata(dev->parent); > > if (!ec_dev) { > > /* > > * We continue even for older devices which don't have the > > * correct device heirarchy, namely, GOOG0003 is a child > > * of GOOG0004. > > */ > > dev_warn(dev, "Couldn't get Chrome EC device pointer.\n"); > > } > > > > > > # dmesg > > ... > > [ 8.513351] cros-ec-spi spi-PRP0001:02: EC failed to respond in time > > [ 8.722072] cros-ec-spi spi-PRP0001:02: EC failed to respond in time > > [ 8.729271] cros-ec-spi spi-PRP0001:02: Cannot identify the EC: error > > -110 > > [ 8.736966] cros-ec-spi spi-PRP0001:02: cannot register EC, > > fallback to spidev > > [ 8.767017] cros_ec_lpcs GOOG0004:00: Chrome EC device registered > > [ 8.807537] cros-usbpd-notify-acpi GOOG0003:00: Couldn't get Chrome > > EC device pointer. > > ... > > > > On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 2:17 AM Prashant Malani <pmal...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Enric, > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 8:26 AM Enric Balletbo i Serra > > > <enric.balle...@collabora.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Prashant, > > > > > > > > On 30/4/20 2:43, Prashant Malani wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 5:38 PM Daniil Lunev <dlu...@chromium.org> > > > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> [to make it appear on the mailing list as I didn't realize I was in > > > > >> hypertext sending mode] > > > > >> > > > > >> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 10:11 AM Daniil Lunev <dlu...@chromium.org> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Hi Enric. > > > > >>> I encountered the issue on a Hatch device when trying running 5.4 > > > > >>> kernel on that. After talking to Prashant it seems that any device > > > > >>> with coreboot built before a certain point (a particular fix for > > > > >>> device hierarchy in ACPI tables of Chrome devices which happened in > > > > >>> mid-April) will not be able to correctly initialize the driver and > > > > >>> will get a kernel panic trying to do so. > > > > > > > > > > A clarifying detail here: This should not be seen in any current > > > > > *production* device. No prod device firmware will carry the erroneous > > > > > ACPI device entry. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the clarification. Then, I don't think we need to upstream > > > > this. This > > > > kind of "defensive-programming" it's not something that should matter > > > > to upstream. > > > > > > Actually, on second thought, I am not 100% sure about this: > > > Daniil, is the erroneous ACPI device on a *production* firmware for > > > this device (I'm not sure about the vintage of that device's BIOS)? > > > > > > My apologies for the confusion, Enric and Daniil; but would be good to > > > get clarification from Daniil. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Enric > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Thanks, > > > > >>> Daniil > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 7:58 AM Enric Balletbo i Serra > > > > >>> <enric.balle...@collabora.com> wrote: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Hi Daniil, > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Thank you for the patch. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> On 28/4/20 3:02, Daniil Lunev wrote: > > > > >>>>> Missing EC in device hierarchy causes NULL pointer to be returned > > > > >>>>> to the > > > > >>>>> probe function which leads to NULL pointer dereference when > > > > >>>>> trying to > > > > >>>>> send a command to the EC. This can be the case if the device is > > > > >>>>> missing > > > > >>>>> or incorrectly configured in the firmware blob. Even if the > > > > >>>>> situation > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> There is any production device with a buggy firmware outside? Or > > > > >>>> this is just > > > > >>>> for defensive programming while developing the firmware? Which > > > > >>>> device is > > > > >>>> affected for this issue? > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Thanks, > > > > >>>> Enric > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> occures, the driver shall not cause a kernel panic as the > > > > >>>>> condition is > > > > >>>>> not critical for the system functions. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Daniil Lunev <dlu...@chromium.org> > > > > >>>>> --- > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_typec.c | 5 +++++ > > > > >>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_typec.c > > > > >>>>> b/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_typec.c > > > > >>>>> index 874269c07073..30d99c930445 100644 > > > > >>>>> --- a/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_typec.c > > > > >>>>> +++ b/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_typec.c > > > > >>>>> @@ -301,6 +301,11 @@ static int cros_typec_probe(struct > > > > >>>>> platform_device *pdev) > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> typec->dev = dev; > > > > >>>>> typec->ec = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent); > > > > >>>>> + if (!typec->ec) { > > > > >>>>> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to get Cros EC data\n"); > > > > >>>>> + return -EINVAL; > > > > >>>>> + } > > > > >>>>> + > > > > >>>>> platform_set_drvdata(pdev, typec); > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> ret = cros_typec_get_cmd_version(typec); > > > > >>>>>