[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGETcx87JNfKEu4brQ3S-9wObv=OwXkAoDBSREQH5dAD68TPsA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2020 19:32:51 -0700
From: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Ji Luo <ji.luo@....com>,
Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 4/4] of: platform: Batch fwnode parsing when adding all
top level devices
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 1:07 PM Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> I think instead of deferred_probe_work_func() moving the device to the
> end of the dpm_list, I think the device probing successfully is what
> should move it to the end of the dpm_list. That way, the dpm_list is
> actually ordered by when the devices become functional and not the
> random order in DT or random probe order which can get pretty
> convoluted with multiple deferred probes. This feels right and will
> make suspend/resume more robust against DT ordering -- but I'm not
> sure what other wide ranging impact this has for other platforms.
Geert,
If you want to play around with a potential fix to test my hypothesis,
I think it's just adding this one line to driver_bound():
============
klist_add_tail(&dev->p->knode_driver, &dev->driver->p->klist_devices);
device_links_driver_bound(dev);
+device_pm_move_to_tail(dev);
device_pm_check_callbacks(dev);
============
-Saravana
Powered by blists - more mailing lists