[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171213095345.GJ13194@kroah.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 10:53:45 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
robdclark@...il.com, s.hauer@...gutronix.de,
l.stach@...gutronix.de, shawnguo@...nel.org, fabio.estevam@....com,
nm@...com, xuwei5@...ilicon.com, robh+dt@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 08/12] boot_constraint: Manage deferrable constraints
On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 07:18:56PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> It is possible that some of the resources aren't available at the time
> constraints are getting set and the boot constraints core will return
> -EPROBE_DEFER for them. In order to retry adding the constraints at a
> later point of time (after the resource is added and before any of its
> users come up), this patch proposes two things:
>
> - Each constraint is represented by a virtual platform device, so that
> it is re-probed again until the time all the dependencies aren't met.
> The platform device is removed along with the constraint, with help of
> the free_resources() callback.
>
> - Enable early defer probing support by calling
> driver_enable_deferred_probe(), so that the core retries probing
> deferred devices every time any device is bound to a driver. This
> makes sure that the constraint is set before any of the users of the
> resources come up.
>
> This is tested on ARM64 Hikey board where probe was deferred for a
> device.
>
> Tested-by: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
> ---
> drivers/base/dd.c | 12 ++
> drivers/boot_constraints/Makefile | 2 +-
> drivers/boot_constraints/deferrable_dev.c | 235 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> include/linux/boot_constraint.h | 14 ++
> 4 files changed, 262 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> create mode 100644 drivers/boot_constraints/deferrable_dev.c
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/dd.c b/drivers/base/dd.c
> index 4eec27fe2b2b..19eff5d08b9a 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/dd.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/dd.c
> @@ -228,6 +228,18 @@ void device_unblock_probing(void)
> driver_deferred_probe_trigger();
> }
>
> +/**
> + * driver_enable_deferred_probe() - Enable probing of deferred devices
> + *
> + * We don't want to get in the way when the bulk of drivers are getting probed
> + * and so deferred probe is disabled in the beginning. Enable it now because we
> + * need it.
> + */
> +void driver_enable_deferred_probe(void)
> +{
> + driver_deferred_probe_enable = true;
> +}
> +
> /**
> * deferred_probe_initcall() - Enable probing of deferred devices
> *
> diff --git a/drivers/boot_constraints/Makefile b/drivers/boot_constraints/Makefile
> index b7ade1a7afb5..a765094623a3 100644
> --- a/drivers/boot_constraints/Makefile
> +++ b/drivers/boot_constraints/Makefile
> @@ -1,3 +1,3 @@
> # Makefile for device boot constraints
>
> -obj-y := clk.o core.o pm.o supply.o
> +obj-y := clk.o deferrable_dev.o core.o pm.o supply.o
> diff --git a/drivers/boot_constraints/deferrable_dev.c b/drivers/boot_constraints/deferrable_dev.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..04056f317aff
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/boot_constraints/deferrable_dev.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,235 @@
> +/*
> + * Copyright (C) 2017 Linaro.
> + * Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
> + *
> + * This file is released under the GPLv2.
> + */
> +
> +#define pr_fmt(fmt) "Boot Constraints: " fmt
Hey, you use this one!
But you shouldn't :)
> +/* This only creates platform devices for now */
> +static void add_deferrable_of_single(struct device_node *np,
> + struct dev_boot_constraint *constraints,
> + int count)
> +{
> + struct device *dev;
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (!of_device_is_available(np))
> + return;
> +
> + ret = of_platform_bus_create(np, NULL, NULL, NULL, false);
> + if (ret)
> + return;
> +
> + if (of_device_is_compatible(np, "arm,primecell")) {
Why is "arm,primecell" in the core code here?
> + struct amba_device *adev = of_find_amba_device_by_node(np);
> +
> + if (!adev) {
> + pr_err("Failed to find amba dev: %s\n", np->full_name);
Never use pr_* when you have a valid struct device to use. Don't you
have one from the struct device_node * passed in here?
> + return;
> + }
> + dev = &adev->dev;
> + } else {
> + struct platform_device *pdev = of_find_device_by_node(np);
> +
> + if (!pdev) {
> + pr_err("Failed to find pdev: %s\n", np->full_name);
Same here.
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists