Message-ID: <CAGETcx-sWZz8GWdhUqsXb9EKkKeiOi53SJrLUJGTOG1q9mZG0w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 27 Jan 2023 21:55:47 -0800
From:   Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>
To:     Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH] of: property: do not create clocks device link for
 clock controllers

On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 9:34 PM Dmitry Baryshkov
<dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> 28 января 2023 г. 07:54:14 GMT+03:00, Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com> пишет:
> >On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 8:41 PM Dmitry Baryshkov
> ><dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 at 01:12, Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 2:51 PM Dmitry Baryshkov
> >> > <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > On 25/01/2023 21:09, Rob Herring wrote:
> >> > > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 06:12:15PM -0800, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> >> > > >> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 5:35 AM Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org> wrote:
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 3:11 AM Dmitry Baryshkov
> >> > > >>> <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org> wrote:
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> Do not create device link for clock controllers. Some of the clocks
> >> > > >>>> provided to the device via OF can be the clocks that are just parents to
> >> > > >>>> the clocks provided by this clock controller. Clock subsystem already
> >> > > >>>> has support for handling missing clock parents correctly (clock
> >> > > >>>> orphans). Later when the parent clock is registered, clocks get
> >> > > >>>> populated properly.
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> An example of the system where this matters is the SDM8450 MTP board
> >> > > >>>> (see arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-mtp.dts). Here the dispcc uses
> >> > > >>>> clocks provided by dsi0_phy and dsi1_phy device tree nodes. However the
> >> > > >>>> dispcc itself provides clocks to both PHYs, to the PHY parent device,
> >> > > >>>> etc. With just dsi0_phy in place devlink is able to break the
> >> > > >>>> dependency, but with two PHYs, dispcc doesn't get probed at all, thus
> >> > > >>>> breaking display support.
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> Cc: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>
> >> > > >>>> Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
> >> > > >>>> Cc: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>
> >> > > >>>> Cc: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@...aro.org>
> >> > > >>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
> >> > > >>>> ---
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> This patch has been posted a year ago in January 2022 ([1]). Since that time
> >> > > >>>> Saravana failed to produce patches to assist in debugging the issue
> >> > > >>>> ([2]) or to fix the issue ([3]). The issue we observe has been described
> >> > > >>>> by Abel at ([4]). As we work on adding support for Dual DSI
> >> > > >>>> configurations, the issue becomes more and more important, since binding
> >> > > >>>> the whole display subsystem fails.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> I did send out a patch series[1] to try and fix this. Heck I even
> >> > > >> talked about this in LPC 2022. So I don't think it's accurate to say I
> >> > > >> didn't help debug this or fix this. There's some email thread in lore
> >> > > >> where Abel gave more details and I figured out the issue and we didn't
> >> > > >> need any more debugging. And then I sent out [1]. Sorry I missed you
> >> > > >> in the cc lise for [1] -- I try to keep track of everyone to cc but
> >> > > >> things slip through the cracks sometimes. But at the same time, it's
> >> > > >> easy to check for emails from me before saying I didn't help or didn't
> >> > > >> send out fixes :)
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> If you do try to give [1] a shot, there are a bunch of bugs that
> >> > > >> people pointed out for which I gave fixes on top of [1] in the
> >> > > >> replies. I was supposed to work on v2 over the holidays, but that
> >> > > >> didn't happen because of stuff outside my control.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>> That's ample time to fix this, so I intend to apply this. But I'll
> >> > > >>> give it a few days for comments.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Rob, I'd recommend not applying this because it'll fix it for Dmitry
> >> > > >> but break someone else's use case. That's the whole reason it takes me
> >> > > >> a while to send out patches -- it's easy to fix it for a subset of
> >> > > >> devices, but fixing something without breaking someone else is harder
> >> > > >> (I still believe it's doable) and it takes a while to test them on all
> >> > > >> the devices I want to test before sending them out.
> >> > >
> >> > > This case is really simple, I think. Clock controllers (and
> >> > > clock-core-framework) are prepared to handle clock orphans properly.
> >> > > Moreover they have been supposed to work in such way for quite a while.
> >> > > In other words, I don't think we should save them from this
> >> > > -EPROBE_DEFERRED.
> >> >
> >> > A clock controller can depend on other clock controllers for non clock
> >> > tree reasons. For example, it might need a clock ON to access its
> >> > registers. So, while the CCF can handle orphans properly, that's not
> >> > the only dependency. Also, fw_devlink is not just about probing
> >> > either. It also has to do with proper sync_state() callbacks.
> >>
> >> Just a question, please excuse if I'm misunderstanding it. Does
> >> fw_devlink created this way also impose any runtime PM dependencies?
> >
> >If you set fw_devlink=rpm in the command line. The default is just "on".
>
> So you plan to switch to rpm at some point?

Ideally, but it's a loooong way off. I need to fix all the issues
people are pointing out right now before I try to go for that being
the default.

-Saravana

Powered by blists - more mailing lists