[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0gxJ9LJ328WbgPrZCV-0SEiO31trsTSYYS8L95P4kfkbA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2018 10:25:14 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@...il.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>,
Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 0/4] drivers/base: bugfix for supplier<-consumer
ordering in device_kset
On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 6:24 AM, Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@...il.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 9:55 PM Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:47 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 10:36 AM, Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de> wrote:
>> > > [cc += Kishon Vijay Abraham]
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 11:18:28AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> > >> OK, so calling devices_kset_move_last() from really_probe() clearly is
>> > >> a mistake.
>> > >>
>> > >> I'm not really sure what the intention of it was as the changelog of
>> > >> commit 52cdbdd49853d doesn't really explain that (why would it be
>> > >> insufficient without that change?)
>> > >
>> > > It seems 52cdbdd49853d fixed an issue with boards which have an MMC
>> > > whose reset pin needs to be driven high on shutdown, lest the MMC
>> > > won't be found on the next boot.
>> > >
>> > > The boards' devicetrees use a kludge wherein the reset pin is modelled
>> > > as a regulator. The regulator is enabled when the MMC probes and
>> > > disabled on driver unbind and shutdown. As a result, the pin is driven
>> > > low on shutdown and the MMC is not found on the next boot.
>> > >
>> > > To fix this, another kludge was invented wherein the GPIO expander
>> > > driving the reset pin unconditionally drives all its pins high on
>> > > shutdown, see pcf857x_shutdown() in drivers/gpio/gpio-pcf857x.c
>> > > (commit adc284755055, "gpio: pcf857x: restore the initial line state
>> > > of all pcf lines").
>> > >
>> > > For this kludge to work, the GPIO expander's ->shutdown hook needs to
>> > > be executed after the MMC expander's ->shutdown hook.
>> > >
>> > > Commit 52cdbdd49853d achieved that by reordering devices_kset according
>> > > to the probe order. Apparently the MMC probes after the GPIO expander,
>> > > possibly because it returns -EPROBE_DEFER if the vmmc regulator isn't
>> > > available yet, see mmc_regulator_get_supply().
>> > >
>> > > Note, I'm just piecing the information together from git history,
>> > > I'm not responsible for these kludges. (I'm innocent!)
>> >
>> > Sure enough. :-)
>> >
>> > In any case, calling devices_kset_move_last() in really_probe() is
>> > plain broken and if its only purpose was to address a single, arguably
>> > kludgy, use case, let's just get rid of it in the first place IMO.
>> >
>> Yes, if it is only used for a single use case.
>>
> Think it again, I saw other potential issue with the current code.
> device_link_add->device_reorder_to_tail() can break the
> "supplier<-consumer" order. During moving children after parent's
> supplier, it ignores the order of child's consumer.
What do you mean?
> Beside this, essentially both devices_kset_move_after/_before() and
> device_pm_move_after/_before() expose the shutdown order to the
> indirect caller, and we can not expect that the caller can not handle
> it correctly. It should be a job of drivers core.
Arguably so, but that's how those functions were designed and the
callers should be aware of the limitation.
If they aren't, there is a bug in the caller.
> It is hard to extract high dimension info and pack them into one dimension
> linked-list.
Well, yes and no.
We know it for a fact that there is a linear ordering that will work.
It is inefficient to figure it out every time during system suspend
and resume, for one and that's why we have dpm_list.
Now, if we have it for suspend and resume, it can also be used for shutdown.
> And in theory, it is warranted that the shutdown seq is
> correct by using device tree info. More important, it is cheap with
> the data structure in hand. So I think it is time to resolve the issue
> once for all.
Not the way you want to do that, though.
Thanks,
Rafael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists