Re: [RESEND PATCH] of: property: do not create clocks device link for clock controllers

[Saravana Kannan]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 2:51 PM Dmitry Baryshkov
<dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 25/01/2023 21:09, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 06:12:15PM -0800, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 5:35 AM Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 3:11 AM Dmitry Baryshkov
> >>> <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Do not create device link for clock controllers. Some of the clocks
> >>>> provided to the device via OF can be the clocks that are just parents to
> >>>> the clocks provided by this clock controller. Clock subsystem already
> >>>> has support for handling missing clock parents correctly (clock
> >>>> orphans). Later when the parent clock is registered, clocks get
> >>>> populated properly.
> >>>>
> >>>> An example of the system where this matters is the SDM8450 MTP board
> >>>> (see arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-mtp.dts). Here the dispcc uses
> >>>> clocks provided by dsi0_phy and dsi1_phy device tree nodes. However the
> >>>> dispcc itself provides clocks to both PHYs, to the PHY parent device,
> >>>> etc. With just dsi0_phy in place devlink is able to break the
> >>>> dependency, but with two PHYs, dispcc doesn't get probed at all, thus
> >>>> breaking display support.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cc: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> Cc: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> Cc: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>
> >>>> This patch has been posted a year ago in January 2022 ([1]). Since that time
> >>>> Saravana failed to produce patches to assist in debugging the issue
> >>>> ([2]) or to fix the issue ([3]). The issue we observe has been described
> >>>> by Abel at ([4]). As we work on adding support for Dual DSI
> >>>> configurations, the issue becomes more and more important, since binding
> >>>> the whole display subsystem fails.
> >>
> >> I did send out a patch series[1] to try and fix this. Heck I even
> >> talked about this in LPC 2022. So I don't think it's accurate to say I
> >> didn't help debug this or fix this. There's some email thread in lore
> >> where Abel gave more details and I figured out the issue and we didn't
> >> need any more debugging. And then I sent out [1]. Sorry I missed you
> >> in the cc lise for [1] -- I try to keep track of everyone to cc but
> >> things slip through the cracks sometimes. But at the same time, it's
> >> easy to check for emails from me before saying I didn't help or didn't
> >> send out fixes :)
> >>
> >> If you do try to give [1] a shot, there are a bunch of bugs that
> >> people pointed out for which I gave fixes on top of [1] in the
> >> replies. I was supposed to work on v2 over the holidays, but that
> >> didn't happen because of stuff outside my control.
> >>
> >>> That's ample time to fix this, so I intend to apply this. But I'll
> >>> give it a few days for comments.
> >>
> >> Rob, I'd recommend not applying this because it'll fix it for Dmitry
> >> but break someone else's use case. That's the whole reason it takes me
> >> a while to send out patches -- it's easy to fix it for a subset of
> >> devices, but fixing something without breaking someone else is harder
> >> (I still believe it's doable) and it takes a while to test them on all
> >> the devices I want to test before sending them out.
>
> This case is really simple, I think. Clock controllers (and
> clock-core-framework) are prepared to handle clock orphans properly.
> Moreover they have been supposed to work in such way for quite a while.
> In other words, I don't think we should save them from this
> -EPROBE_DEFERRED.

A clock controller can depend on other clock controllers for non clock
tree reasons. For example, it might need a clock ON to access its
registers. So, while the CCF can handle orphans properly, that's not
the only dependency. Also, fw_devlink is not just about probing
either. It also has to do with proper sync_state() callbacks.

Also, I already fixed the issue you are referring to while not
breaking the conditions I'm referring to. So, I don't know why you are
so opposed to that. See Abel's Tested-by here:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YvonlAwXAoXTUTZe@xxxxxxxxxx/

> Thus I think it is better to let them continue doing their job of
> handling probe deferrals on their own, at least for the time being.

I'm pretty sure your patch will break other Qualcomm platforms because
they depend on sync_state() callbacks to boot up properly when
all/most of their drivers are built as modules.

> And
> then, when your patches are finished, we can think about reenabling
> current behaviour. As a reminder, currently, all Qualcomm platforms
> trying to use double DSI configuration are broken and have to use
> fw_devlink= kernel params.

I'm/was working on sending out the v2 when I got your email. Hold
tight please. It shouldn't take too long.

-Saravana