[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#922478: have yet to find an armhf board that works with 4.9.144-3



Control: tag -1 patch

Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org> (2019-02-17):
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 09:52:48AM -0800, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> > After upgrading to the latest 4.9.x kernel in sid, all of the armhf
> > boards running this kernel failed to boot.
> > 
> > Adding to the list:
> > 
> > imx6: Cubox-i4pro, Cubox-i4x4, Wandboard Quad
> > exynos5: Odroid-XU4
> > exynos4: Odroid-U3
> > rk3328: firefly-rk3288
> > sunxi A20: Cubietruck
> > 
> > 
> > So it clearly impacts a wide variety of systems...
> 
> debian/patches/debian/arm-avoid-abi-change-in-4.9.139.patch changes
> the order of struct processor but lacks a corresponding change to 
> arch/arm/mm/proc-macros.S

Based on this suggestion and Julien's suggested patch on IRC a couple
hours ago, I've tested the attached patch successfully (as in: from a
busy loop in qemu-system-arm to the “expected” kernel panic, as
discussed in another subthread).

I've uploaded linux-image binaries (armmp and armmp-lpae) here, which
were cross-built through sbuild, thanks to Vagrant's suggestion on IRC:
  https://people.debian.org/~kibi/linux-bug-922478/

which is:
  DEBIAN_KERNEL_DISABLE_DEBUG=yes sbuild -d stretch-proposed-updates -c stretch-amd64-sbuild --build=amd64 --profiles='pkg.linux.notools nodoc nopython cross pkg.linux.nosource' --host=armhf linux_4.9.144-4.dsc

Checking this on real hardware would be great, trying to put everyone
involved in the loop through cc.


Cheers,
-- 
Cyril Brulebois (kibi@debian.org)            <https://debamax.com/>
D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant
From 07f237b3911a685b18a7584456ace1293636bcc7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Cyril Brulebois <cyril@debamax.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 13:49:50 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Update debian/arm-avoid-abi-change-in-4.9.139.patch (Closes:
 #922478).

This makes it take into account the function pointers reordering in
arch/arm/mm/proc-macros.S (addition of check_bugs), fixing the failure
to boot many armhf devices.

With thanks to Adrian Bunk for the hint, and Julien Cristau for the
prospective patch.
---
 debian/changelog                                       | 10 ++++++++++
 .../debian/arm-avoid-abi-change-in-4.9.139.patch       | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 28 insertions(+)

diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog
index b0d5b6082859..3ef3c29c6fca 100644
--- a/debian/changelog
+++ b/debian/changelog
@@ -1,3 +1,13 @@
+linux (4.9.144-4) UNRELEASED; urgency=medium
+
+  * Update debian/arm-avoid-abi-change-in-4.9.139.patch to take into
+    account the function pointers reordering in arch/arm/mm/proc-macros.S
+    (addition of check_bugs), fixing the failure to boot many armhf
+    devices (Closes: #922478). With thanks to Adrian Bunk for the hint,
+    and Julien Cristau for the prospective patch.
+
+ -- Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org>  Mon, 18 Feb 2019 13:46:37 +0100
+
 linux (4.9.144-3) stretch; urgency=medium
 
   * libceph: fix CEPH_FEATURE_CEPHX_V2 check in calc_signature()
diff --git a/debian/patches/debian/arm-avoid-abi-change-in-4.9.139.patch b/debian/patches/debian/arm-avoid-abi-change-in-4.9.139.patch
index 7f73ea0066c8..bf1dc1e86731 100644
--- a/debian/patches/debian/arm-avoid-abi-change-in-4.9.139.patch
+++ b/debian/patches/debian/arm-avoid-abi-change-in-4.9.139.patch
@@ -40,3 +40,21 @@ building modules, to make sure they really don't use it.
  } processor;
  
  #ifndef MULTI_CPU
+--- a/arch/arm/mm/proc-macros.S
++++ b/arch/arm/mm/proc-macros.S
+@@ -281,7 +281,6 @@ ENTRY(\name\()_processor_functions)
+ 	.word	\dabort
+ 	.word	\pabort
+ 	.word	cpu_\name\()_proc_init
+-	.word	\bugs
+ 	.word	cpu_\name\()_proc_fin
+ 	.word	cpu_\name\()_reset
+ 	.word	cpu_\name\()_do_idle
+@@ -309,6 +308,7 @@ ENTRY(\name\()_processor_functions)
+ 	.word	0
+ 	.endif
+ 
++	.word	\bugs
+ 	.size	\name\()_processor_functions, . - \name\()_processor_functions
+ .endm
+ 
-- 
2.11.0

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: