Re: Possible regression between 4.9 and 4.13

On 31.08.2017 12:39, Mason wrote: On 30/08/2017 11:06, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:55:37AM +0200, Mason wrote: On 30/08/2017 08:02, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: To get back to the original issue here, the hardware seems to have died, the driver stops talking to it,

Re: Possible regression between 4.9 and 4.13

On 31.08.2017 12:17, Mason wrote: On 30/08/2017 11:37, Mason wrote: On 30/08/2017 11:07, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: Please don't forget to mention that this is quirky hardware that depends on BROKEN because it multiplexes MMIO and config space accesses in the same memory window without any

Re: Possible regression between 4.9 and 4.13

On 30/08/2017 11:06, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:55:37AM +0200, Mason wrote: > >> On 30/08/2017 08:02, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> >>> To get back to the original issue here, the hardware seems to have died, >>> the driver stops talking to it, and all is good. The

Re: Possible regression between 4.9 and 4.13

On 30/08/2017 11:37, Mason wrote: > On 30/08/2017 11:07, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > >> Please don't forget to mention that this is quirky hardware that >> depends on BROKEN because it multiplexes MMIO and config space >> accesses in the same memory window without any locking whatsoever >> (which

Re: Possible regression between 4.9 and 4.13

On 30/08/2017 11:07, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > Please don't forget to mention that this is quirky hardware that > depends on BROKEN because it multiplexes MMIO and config space > accesses in the same memory window without any locking whatsoever > (which would be difficult to do in the first place

Re: Possible regression between 4.9 and 4.13

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:07:59AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 30 August 2017 at 09:55, Mason wrote: > > On 30/08/2017 08:02, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > >> To get back to the original issue here, the hardware seems to have died, > >> the driver stops talking to it,

Re: Possible regression between 4.9 and 4.13

On 30 August 2017 at 09:55, Mason wrote: > On 30/08/2017 08:02, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > >> To get back to the original issue here, the hardware seems to have died, >> the driver stops talking to it, and all is good. The "regression" here >> is that we now properly can

Re: Possible regression between 4.9 and 4.13

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:55:37AM +0200, Mason wrote: > On 30/08/2017 08:02, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > To get back to the original issue here, the hardware seems to have died, > > the driver stops talking to it, and all is good. The "regression" here > > is that we now properly can

Re: Possible regression between 4.9 and 4.13

On 30/08/2017 08:02, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > To get back to the original issue here, the hardware seems to have died, > the driver stops talking to it, and all is good. The "regression" here > is that we now properly can determine that the hardware is crap. Before 4.12, when I unplugged my

Re: Possible regression between 4.9 and 4.13

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 08:36:23AM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote: > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 05:51:38PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 05:34:56PM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 04:47:25PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 29,

Re: Possible regression between 4.9 and 4.13

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 05:51:38PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 05:34:56PM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 04:47:25PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 03:38:52PM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote: > > Is 0x not a

Re: Possible regression between 4.9 and 4.13

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 01:53:10AM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote: > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 04:28:53PM +0300, Mathias Nyman wrote: > > This tight check was originally done to detect pci hotplug removed > > hosts as soon as possible. > > In Mason's case, the parent of the XHCI controller isn't a

Re: Possible regression between 4.9 and 4.13

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 04:28:53PM +0300, Mathias Nyman wrote: > This tight check was originally done to detect pci hotplug removed > hosts as soon as possible. In Mason's case, the parent of the XHCI controller isn't a hotplug port, see this lspci output:

Re: Possible regression between 4.9 and 4.13

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 05:34:56PM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote: > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 04:47:25PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 03:38:52PM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 04:28:53PM +0300, Mathias Nyman wrote: > > > > Then again it might be

Re: Possible regression between 4.9 and 4.13

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 04:47:25PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 03:38:52PM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 04:28:53PM +0300, Mathias Nyman wrote: > > > Then again it might be a bit too drastic to kill xhci just because > > > we read 0x

Re: Possible regression between 4.9 and 4.13

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 03:38:52PM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote: > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 04:28:53PM +0300, Mathias Nyman wrote: > > Then again it might be a bit too drastic to kill xhci just because > > we read 0x once from a mmio xhci register. Maybe we should > > return an error a couple

Re: Possible regression between 4.9 and 4.13

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 04:28:53PM +0300, Mathias Nyman wrote: > Then again it might be a bit too drastic to kill xhci just because > we read 0x once from a mmio xhci register. Maybe we should > return an error a couple times before actually tearing down xhci. > > This tight check was

Re: Possible regression between 4.9 and 4.13

On 28.08.2017 17:40, Mason wrote: On 28/08/2017 10:39, Mathias Nyman wrote: Could you take a log with the following added debug, without your extra delays, It should show a bit more about the state of the controller when we read 0x I applied the following patch on top of v4.12-rc1

Re: Possible regression between 4.9 and 4.13

On 28/08/2017 10:39, Mathias Nyman wrote: > Could you take a log with the following added debug, without > your extra delays, It should show a bit more about the state > of the controller when we read 0x I applied the following patch on top of v4.12-rc1 diff --git

Re: Possible regression between 4.9 and 4.13

On 23.08.2017 17:30, Mason wrote: On 23/08/2017 14:41, Mason wrote: I compiled a minimal kernel, with lots of irrelevant drivers and frameworks left out, including power management. I still get the "xHCI host controller not responding, assume dead" issue. The problem seems to have a

Re: Possible regression between 4.9 and 4.13

On 23/08/2017 14:41, Mason wrote: > I compiled a minimal kernel, with lots of irrelevant drivers and > frameworks left out, including power management. I still get the > "xHCI host controller not responding, assume dead" issue. The problem seems to have a timing-related aspect. I added a bunch

Re: Possible regression between 4.9 and 4.13

On 23/08/2017 13:54, Mason wrote: > On 23/08/2017 13:11, Mathias Nyman wrote: > >> In this case we read the register when hub thread asks to clear port feature. >> >> why portsc returns 0x is a another question, could the hub thread be >> running while xhci controller is (in D3)? >> Was

Re: Possible regression between 4.9 and 4.13

On 23/08/2017 13:11, Mathias Nyman wrote: > On 23.08.2017 12:31, Mason wrote: > >> [ 46.525247] usb 2-2: new SuperSpeed USB device number 2 using xhci_hcd >> [ 46.565496] usb-storage 2-2:1.0: USB Mass Storage device detected >> [ 46.571934] scsi host0: usb-storage 2-2:1.0 >> [ 47.601227]

Re: Possible regression between 4.9 and 4.13

On 23.08.2017 12:31, Mason wrote: On 23/08/2017 09:51, Mathias Nyman wrote: very likely cause is the more aggressive detection of pci removed xhci hosts See commit d9f11ba9f107aa335091ab8d7ba5eea714e46e8b xhci: Rework how we handle unresponsive or hoptlug removed hosts It checks if a

Re: Possible regression between 4.9 and 4.13

On 23/08/2017 09:51, Mathias Nyman wrote: > very likely cause is the more aggressive detection of pci removed xhci hosts > > See commit d9f11ba9f107aa335091ab8d7ba5eea714e46e8b > xhci: Rework how we handle unresponsive or hoptlug removed hosts > > It checks if a xhci register reads returns

Re: Possible regression between 4.9 and 4.13

On 23/08/2017 09:51, Mathias Nyman wrote: > very likely cause is the more aggressive detection of pci removed xhci hosts > > See commit d9f11ba9f107aa335091ab8d7ba5eea714e46e8b > xhci: Rework how we handle unresponsive or hoptlug removed hosts > > It checks if a xhci register reads returns

Re: Possible regression between 4.9 and 4.13

On 23/08/2017 09:51, Mathias Nyman wrote: > On 23.08.2017 09:07, Felipe Balbi wrote: > >> Mason writes: >> >>> Any idea what could have changed between 4.9 and 4.13 ? >> >> Quite a bit: >> >> $ git rev-list --no-merges --count v4.13-rc6 ^v4.9 -- drivers/usb/host/xhci >> drivers/usb/core/ >> 58

Re: Possible regression between 4.9 and 4.13

On 23.08.2017 09:07, Felipe Balbi wrote: Hi, Mason writes: Hello, The driver for my system's PCIe host bridge landed recently (in 4.13) but it was developed on 4.9 I tested the PCIe host bridge by plugging a 4-port USB3 adapter into the PCIe slot (system at rest) and

Re: Possible regression between 4.9 and 4.13

Hi, Mason writes: > Hello, > > The driver for my system's PCIe host bridge landed recently > (in 4.13) but it was developed on 4.9 > > I tested the PCIe host bridge by plugging a 4-port USB3 adapter > into the PCIe slot (system at rest) and plugging an USB3 Flash > drive into