Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

arm64: dts: qcom: msm8916-wingtech-wt88047: Enable ov8865 #345

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Conversation

barni2000
Copy link

@barni2000 barni2000 commented Feb 24, 2024

Enable ov8865 rear camera.

Preview works fine, but the captures has too much pink.
I have added flash led for the megapixels config but not works yet maybe some udev rules will be needed.

Megapixels Config:
wingtech,wt88047.txt

Config should be renamed from .txt to .ini

Enable ov8865 rear camera.

Signed-off-by: Barnabás Czémán <[email protected]>
M0Rf30 pushed a commit to M0Rf30/linux that referenced this pull request Apr 13, 2024
[ Upstream commit 114b5b3 ]

A64_LDRSW() takes three registers: Xt, Xn, Xm as arguments and it loads
and sign extends the value at address Xn + Xm into register Xt.

Currently, the offset is being directly used in place of the tmp
register which has the offset already loaded by the last emitted
instruction.

This will cause JIT failures. The easiest way to reproduce this is to
test the following code through test_bpf module:

{
	"BPF_LDX_MEMSX | BPF_W",
	.u.insns_int = {
		BPF_LD_IMM64(R1, 0x00000000deadbeefULL),
		BPF_LD_IMM64(R2, 0xffffffffdeadbeefULL),
		BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, R10, R1, -7),
		BPF_LDX_MEMSX(BPF_W, R0, R10, -7),
		BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JNE, R0, R2, 1),
		BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_MOV, R0, 0),
		BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
	},
	INTERNAL,
	{ },
	{ { 0, 0 } },
	.stack_depth = 7,
},

We need to use the offset as -7 to trigger this code path, there could
be other valid ways to trigger this from proper BPF programs as well.

This code is rejected by the JIT because -7 is passed to A64_LDRSW() but
it expects a valid register (0 - 31).

 roott@pjy:~# modprobe test_bpf test_name="BPF_LDX_MEMSX | BPF_W"
 [11300.490371] test_bpf: test_bpf: set 'test_bpf' as the default test_suite.
 [11300.491750] test_bpf: msm8916-mainline#345 BPF_LDX_MEMSX | BPF_W
 [11300.493179] aarch64_insn_encode_register: unknown register encoding -7
 [11300.494133] aarch64_insn_encode_register: unknown register encoding -7
 [11300.495292] FAIL to select_runtime err=-524
 [11300.496804] test_bpf: Summary: 0 PASSED, 1 FAILED, [0/0 JIT'ed]
 modprobe: ERROR: could not insert 'test_bpf': Invalid argument

Applying this patch fixes the issue.

 root@pjy:~# modprobe test_bpf test_name="BPF_LDX_MEMSX | BPF_W"
 [  292.837436] test_bpf: test_bpf: set 'test_bpf' as the default test_suite.
 [  292.839416] test_bpf: msm8916-mainline#345 BPF_LDX_MEMSX | BPF_W jited:1 156 PASS
 [  292.844794] test_bpf: Summary: 1 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [1/1 JIT'ed]

Fixes: cc88f54 ("bpf, arm64: Support sign-extension load instructions")
Signed-off-by: Puranjay Mohan <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
@barni2000 barni2000 closed this by deleting the head repository Jun 3, 2024
barni2000 pushed a commit to msm8953-mainline/linux that referenced this pull request Jun 21, 2024
[ Upstream commit 8ecf3c1 ]

Recent additions in BPF like cpu v4 instructions, test_bpf module
exhibits the following failures:

  test_bpf: #82 ALU_MOVSX | BPF_B jited:1 ret 2 != 1 (0x2 != 0x1)FAIL (1 times)
  test_bpf: #83 ALU_MOVSX | BPF_H jited:1 ret 2 != 1 (0x2 != 0x1)FAIL (1 times)
  test_bpf: #84 ALU64_MOVSX | BPF_B jited:1 ret 2 != 1 (0x2 != 0x1)FAIL (1 times)
  test_bpf: #85 ALU64_MOVSX | BPF_H jited:1 ret 2 != 1 (0x2 != 0x1)FAIL (1 times)
  test_bpf: #86 ALU64_MOVSX | BPF_W jited:1 ret 2 != 1 (0x2 != 0x1)FAIL (1 times)

  test_bpf: #165 ALU_SDIV_X: -6 / 2 = -3 jited:1 ret 2147483645 != -3 (0x7ffffffd != 0xfffffffd)FAIL (1 times)
  test_bpf: #166 ALU_SDIV_K: -6 / 2 = -3 jited:1 ret 2147483645 != -3 (0x7ffffffd != 0xfffffffd)FAIL (1 times)

  test_bpf: #169 ALU_SMOD_X: -7 % 2 = -1 jited:1 ret 1 != -1 (0x1 != 0xffffffff)FAIL (1 times)
  test_bpf: #170 ALU_SMOD_K: -7 % 2 = -1 jited:1 ret 1 != -1 (0x1 != 0xffffffff)FAIL (1 times)

  test_bpf: #172 ALU64_SMOD_K: -7 % 2 = -1 jited:1 ret 1 != -1 (0x1 != 0xffffffff)FAIL (1 times)

  test_bpf: msm8916-mainline#313 BSWAP 16: 0x0123456789abcdef -> 0xefcd
  eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported
  jited:0 301 PASS
  test_bpf: msm8916-mainline#314 BSWAP 32: 0x0123456789abcdef -> 0xefcdab89
  eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported
  jited:0 555 PASS
  test_bpf: msm8916-mainline#315 BSWAP 64: 0x0123456789abcdef -> 0x67452301
  eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported
  jited:0 268 PASS
  test_bpf: msm8916-mainline#316 BSWAP 64: 0x0123456789abcdef >> 32 -> 0xefcdab89
  eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported
  jited:0 269 PASS
  test_bpf: msm8916-mainline#317 BSWAP 16: 0xfedcba9876543210 -> 0x1032
  eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported
  jited:0 460 PASS
  test_bpf: msm8916-mainline#318 BSWAP 32: 0xfedcba9876543210 -> 0x10325476
  eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported
  jited:0 320 PASS
  test_bpf: msm8916-mainline#319 BSWAP 64: 0xfedcba9876543210 -> 0x98badcfe
  eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported
  jited:0 222 PASS
  test_bpf: msm8916-mainline#320 BSWAP 64: 0xfedcba9876543210 >> 32 -> 0x10325476
  eBPF filter opcode 00d7 (@2) unsupported
  jited:0 273 PASS

  test_bpf: msm8916-mainline#344 BPF_LDX_MEMSX | BPF_B
  eBPF filter opcode 0091 (@5) unsupported
  jited:0 432 PASS
  test_bpf: msm8916-mainline#345 BPF_LDX_MEMSX | BPF_H
  eBPF filter opcode 0089 (@5) unsupported
  jited:0 381 PASS
  test_bpf: msm8916-mainline#346 BPF_LDX_MEMSX | BPF_W
  eBPF filter opcode 0081 (@5) unsupported
  jited:0 505 PASS

  test_bpf: torvalds#490 JMP32_JA: Unconditional jump: if (true) return 1
  eBPF filter opcode 0006 (@1) unsupported
  jited:0 261 PASS

  test_bpf: Summary: 1040 PASSED, 10 FAILED, [924/1038 JIT'ed]

Fix them by adding missing processing.

Fixes: daabb2b ("bpf/tests: add tests for cpuv4 instructions")
Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <[email protected]>
Link: https://msgid.link/91de862dda99d170697eb79ffb478678af7e0b27.1709652689.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
TravMurav pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 17, 2024
Add a test case which replaces an active ingress qdisc while keeping the
miniq in-tact during the transition period to the new clsact qdisc.

  # ./vmtest.sh -- ./test_progs -t tc_link
  [...]
  ./test_progs -t tc_link
  [    3.412871] bpf_testmod: loading out-of-tree module taints kernel.
  [    3.413343] bpf_testmod: module verification failed: signature and/or required key missing - tainting kernel
  #332     tc_links_after:OK
  #333     tc_links_append:OK
  #334     tc_links_basic:OK
  #335     tc_links_before:OK
  #336     tc_links_chain_classic:OK
  #337     tc_links_chain_mixed:OK
  #338     tc_links_dev_chain0:OK
  #339     tc_links_dev_cleanup:OK
  #340     tc_links_dev_mixed:OK
  #341     tc_links_ingress:OK
  #342     tc_links_invalid:OK
  #343     tc_links_prepend:OK
  #344     tc_links_replace:OK
  #345     tc_links_revision:OK
  Summary: 14/0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED

Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <[email protected]>
Cc: Martin KaFai Lau <[email protected]>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant