[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdVDUE3=0e580JMorae3-vXxL2m7k28CHQZQuXe13OzZNw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 09:46:42 +0100
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@....samsung.com>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] driver core: Functional dependencies tracking support
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 1:59 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@...nel.org> wrote:
>>> As clarified by Rafael at Plumbers, this functional dependencies
>>> framework assumes your driver / subsystem supports deferred probe,
>>
>> It isn't particularly clear what you mean by "support" here.
>
> I noted some folks had reported issues, and you acknowledged that if
> deferred probe was used in some drivers and if this created an issue
> the same issue would be seen with this framework. AFAICT there are two
> possible issues to consider:
>
> 1) the one Geert Uytterhoeven noted. Again I'll note what he had mentioned [0].
>
> "Some drivers / subsystems don’t support deferred probe yet, such failures
> usually don’t blow up, but cause subtle malfunctioning. Example, an Ethernet
> phy could not get its interrupt as the primary IRQ chip had not been probed
> yet, it reverted to polling though. Sub-optimal." [0]
>
> [0] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/2016-August/003425.html
>
> Geert can you provide more details?
Issue reported in "of_mdiobus_register_phy() and deferred probe"
(http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1510.2/05770.html)
Key point is:
"However, of_mdiobus_register_phy() uses irq_of_parse_and_map(), which plainly
ignores EPROBE_DEFER, and it just continues."
At that time, the PHY driver fell back to polling, but as of commit d5c3d8465
("net: phy: Avoid polling PHY with PHY_IGNORE_INTERRUPTS") that's no longer the
case, and now the PHY fails to work completely.
Workaround is "[PATCH v2] irqchip/renesas-irqc: Postpone driver initialization"
(https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg403325.html), which seems to have
sparked some interest in fixing the issue for good ;-)
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
Powered by blists - more mailing lists