Re: [PATCH v2 00/11] fw_devlink improvements

[Miquel Raynal]

Hi Maxim & Maxim,

saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx wrote on Thu, 26 Jan 2023 16:11:27 -0800:

> This patch series improves fw_devlink in the following ways:
> 
> 1. It no longer cares about a fwnode having a "compatible" property. It
>    figures this our more dynamically. The only expectation is that
>    fwnode that are converted to devices actually get probed by a driver
>    for the dependencies to be enforced correctly.
> 
> 2. Finer grained dependency tracking. fw_devlink will now create device
>    links from the consumer to the actual resource's device (if it has one,
>    Eg: gpio_device) instead of the parent supplier device. This improves
>    things like async suspend/resume ordering, potentially remove the need
>    for frameworks to create device links, more parallelized async probing,
>    and better sync_state() tracking.
> 
> 3. Handle hardware/software quirks where a child firmware node gets
>    populated as a device before its parent firmware node AND actually
>    supplies a non-optional resource to the parent firmware node's
>    device.
> 
> 4. Way more robust at cycle handling (see patch for the insane cases).
> 
> 5. Stops depending on OF_POPULATED to figure out some corner cases.
> 
> 6. Simplifies the work that needs to be done by the firmware specific
>    code.
> 
> Sorry it took a while to roll in the fixes I gave in the v1 series
> thread[1] into a v2 series.
> 
> Since I didn't make any additional changes on top of what I already gave
> in the v1 thread and Dmitry is very eager to get this series going, I'm
> sending it out without testing locally. I already tested these patches a
> few months ago as part of the v1 series. So I don't expect any major
> issues. I'll test them again on my end in the next few days and will
> report here if I actually find anything wrong.
> 
> Tony, Naresh, Abel, Sudeep, Geert,
> 
> I got the following reviewed by's and tested by's a few months back, but
> it's been 5 months since I sent out v1. So I wasn't sure if it was okay
> to include them in the v2 commits. Let me know if you are okay with this
> being included in the commits and/or if you want to test this series
> again.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Tested-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Tested-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Tested-by: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Tested-by: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Tested-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx>
> Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Dmitry, Maxim(s), Miquel, Luca, Doug, Colin, Martin, Jean-Philippe,
> 
> I've Cc-ed you because I had pointed you to v1 of this series + the
> patches in that thread at one point or another as a fix to some issue
> you were facing. It'd appreciate it if you can test this series and
> report any issues, or things it fixed and give Tested-bys.

Maxim & Maxim I would really appreciate if you could validate that the
original issue you had is solved with this version? I don't have any
hardware suffering from this issue.

> In addition, if you can also apply a revert of this series[2] and delete
> driver_deferred_probe_check_state() from your tree and see if you hit
> any issues and report them, that'd be great too! I'm pretty sure some of
> you will hit issues with that. I want to fix those next and then
> revert[2].
> 
> Thanks,
> Saravana
> 
> [1] - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220810060040.321697-1-saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx/
> [2] - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220819221616.2107893-1-saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx/
> [3] - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAGETcx-JUV1nj8wBJrTPfyvM7=Mre5j_vkVmZojeiumUGG6QZQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> 
> v1 -> v2:
> - Fixed Patch 1 to handle a corner case discussed in [3].
> - New patch 10 to handle "fsl,imx8mq-gpc" being initialized by 2 drivers.
> - New patch 11 to add fw_devlink support for SCMI devices.
> 
> Cc: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Alexander Stein <alexander.stein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: John Stultz <jstultz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Maxim Kiselev <bigunclemax@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Maxim Kochetkov <fido_max@xxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Luca Weiss <luca.weiss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Colin Foster <colin.foster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Martin Kepplinger <martin.kepplinger@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jpb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Saravana Kannan (11):
>   driver core: fw_devlink: Don't purge child fwnode's consumer links
>   driver core: fw_devlink: Improve check for fwnode with no
>     device/driver
>   soc: renesas: Move away from using OF_POPULATED for fw_devlink
>   gpiolib: Clear the gpio_device's fwnode initialized flag before adding
>   driver core: fw_devlink: Add DL_FLAG_CYCLE support to device links
>   driver core: fw_devlink: Allow marking a fwnode link as being part of
>     a cycle
>   driver core: fw_devlink: Consolidate device link flag computation
>   driver core: fw_devlink: Make cycle detection more robust
>   of: property: Simplify of_link_to_phandle()
>   irqchip/irq-imx-gpcv2: Mark fwnode device as not initialized
>   firmware: arm_scmi: Set fwnode for the scmi_device
> 
>  drivers/base/core.c             | 443 +++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>  drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/bus.c |   2 +
>  drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c          |   6 +
>  drivers/irqchip/irq-imx-gpcv2.c |   1 +
>  drivers/of/property.c           |  84 +-----
>  drivers/soc/imx/gpcv2.c         |   1 +
>  drivers/soc/renesas/rcar-sysc.c |   2 +-
>  include/linux/device.h          |   1 +
>  include/linux/fwnode.h          |  12 +-
>  9 files changed, 332 insertions(+), 220 deletions(-)
> 


Thanks,
Miquèl