Message-ID: <20220815135251.i3pejjtnd3nqeolo@bogus>
Date:   Mon, 15 Aug 2022 14:52:51 +0100
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:     Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
        Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
        Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@...aro.org>,
        Alexander Stein <alexander.stein@...tq-group.com>,
        Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>,
        Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, kernel-team@...roid.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/9] fw_devlink improvements

On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 11:00:29PM -0700, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> 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.
> 
> This took way too long to get done due to typo bugs I had in my rewrite or
> corner cases I had to find and handle. But it's fairly well tested at this
> point and I expect this to work properly.
> 
> Abel & Doug,
> 
> This should fix your cyclic dependency issues with your display. Can you
> give it a shot please?
> 
> Alexander,
> 
> This should fix your issue where the power domain device not having a
> compatible property. Can you give it a shot please?
> 
> Tony,
> 
> This should handle the odd case of the child being the supplier of the
> parent. Can you please give this a shot? I want to make sure the cycle
> detection code handles this properly and treats it like it's NOT a cycle.
> 
> Geert,
> 
> Can you test the renesas stuff I changed please? They should continue
> working like before. Any other sanity test on other hardware would be
> great too.
> 
> Sudeep,
> 
> I don't think there are any unfixed issues you had reported in my other
> patches that this series might fix, but it'll be nice if you could give
> this a sanity test.
> 

Sure tested this on Juno on top of v6.0-rc1 and found no regressions.
So,

Tested-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>

Just wanted to check if the logs are intentional or do you plan to make
them debug. On Juno with hardly few such dependencies I get below extra
logs during boot, it may add loads on other platforms. I am fine either
way, just thought of checking.

| amba 20040000.funnel: Fixed dependency cycle(s) with /etf@...10000/in-ports/port/endpoint
| amba 20120000.replicator: Fixed dependency cycle(s) with /etr@...70000/in-ports/port/endpoint
| amba 20120000.replicator: Fixed dependency cycle(s) with /tpiu@...30000/in-ports/port/endpoint
| amba 220c0000.funnel: Fixed dependency cycle(s) with /etm@...40000/out-ports/port/endpoint
| amba 220c0000.funnel: Fixed dependency cycle(s) with /funnel@...40000/in-ports/port@...ndpoint
| amba 22140000.etm: Fixed dependency cycle(s) with /funnel@...c0000/in-ports/port@...ndpoint
| amba 230c0000.funnel: Fixed dependency cycle(s) with /etm@...40000/out-ports/port/endpoint
| amba 230c0000.funnel: Fixed dependency cycle(s) with /funnel@...40000/in-ports/port@...ndpoint
| amba 23140000.etm: Fixed dependency cycle(s) with /funnel@...c0000/in-ports/port@...ndpoint
| amba 23240000.etm: Fixed dependency cycle(s) with /funnel@...c0000/in-ports/port@...ndpoint
| amba 23340000.etm: Fixed dependency cycle(s) with /funnel@...c0000/in-ports/port@...ndpoint
| amba 20130000.funnel: Fixed dependency cycle(s) with /stm@...00000/out-ports/port/endpoint
| amba 20140000.etf: Fixed dependency cycle(s) with /funnel@...30000/out-ports/port/endpoint
| amba 20150000.funnel: Fixed dependency cycle(s) with /etf@...40000/out-ports/port/endpoint
| amba 20150000.funnel: Fixed dependency cycle(s) with /etf@...10000/out-ports/port/endpoint
| amba 20150000.funnel: Fixed dependency cycle(s) with /replicator@...20000/in-ports/port/endpoint
| i2c 0-0070: Fixed dependency cycle(s) with /hdlcd@...60000/port/endpoint
| i2c 0-0071: Fixed dependency cycle(s) with /hdlcd@...50000/port/endpoint

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep

Powered by blists - more mailing lists