Re: [PATCH] ALSA: hda - Defer probe when loading patch firmware

[Takashi Iwai]

At Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:21:15 +0200,
Takashi Iwai wrote:
> 
> At Thu, 9 Aug 2012 10:07:13 +0200,
> Thierry Reding wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 09:42:48AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > > At Thu, 9 Aug 2012 09:36:42 +0200,
> > > Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 09:31:30AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > > > > At Thu, 9 Aug 2012 09:08:13 +0200,
> > > > > Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 08:57:13AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > > > > > > At Thu,  9 Aug 2012 08:45:23 +0200,
> > > > > > > Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Recent changes to the firmware loading helpers cause drivers to stall
> > > > > > > > when firmware is loaded during the module_init() call. The snd-hda-intel
> > > > > > > > module requests firmware if the patch= parameter is used to load a patch
> > > > > > > > file. This patch works around the problem by deferring the probe in such
> > > > > > > > cases, which will cause the module to load successfully and the driver
> > > > > > > > binding to the device outside the module_init() call.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Is the "recent" change meant 3.6 kernel, or in linux-next?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > In anyway, I don't understand why such a change was allowed.  Most
> > > > > > > drivers do call request_firmware() at the device probing time.
> > > > > > > If this really has to be resolved in the driver side, it must be a bug
> > > > > > > in the firmware loader core code.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > A good explanation of the problem and subsequent discussion can be found
> > > > > > here:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 	http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.video-input-infrastructure/49975
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yeah, but it doesn't justify this ugly module option.
> > > > > It's a simple bug.  Papering over it with this option doesn't fix
> > > > > anything.
> > > > 
> > > > It's not an option, all it does is defer probing if and only if the
> > > > patch parameter was specified to make sure the firmware load won't
> > > > stall. I realize that this may not be an optimal solution, but at least
> > > > it fixes the problem with no fallout.
> > > 
> > > Ah sorry, I misread the patch.
> > > 
> > > Then it shouldn't be checked at that point.  Since 3.5 kernel, the
> > > probing code was already split for vga_switcheroo support.
> > 
> > Yes, I saw that. But unless you actually use vga_switcheroo, the second
> > stage, azx_probe_continue(), will still be called from azx_probe() and
> > therefore ultimately from module_init().
> 
> Yeah, but this could be easily delayed.  The split was already done,
> so the next step would be to return after the first half at probe,
> then call the second half later.
> 
> > Before coming up with this patch I actually did play around a bit with
> > using the asynchronous firmware load functions but it turned out to be
> > rather difficult to do so I opted for the easy way. The biggest problem
> > I faced was that since patch loading needs to be done very early on, a
> > lot of the initialization would need to be done after .probe() and many
> > things could still fail, so cleaning up after errors would become
> > increasingly difficult.
> 
> async probe is also on my TODO list, but it's deferred ;)
> 
> > > The point you added is the second stage.
> > 
> > I don't understand this sentence.
> 
> I meant that your patch added the check at the second-half probing
> function (azx_probe_contine()).  That is, it could be already the
> point triggered by vga_switcheroo handler, not via module_init any
> longer.
> 
> So, after rethinking what you suggested, I wrote a quick patch below.
> Could you check whether this works?

Obviously it won't work if the module is re-loaded manually.
The -EPROBE_DEFER would work only at boot time, as it seems.


Takashi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/