[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAL_JsqJnxf0XBHKuoAOxsjOxAtufiWXsCJ2kTwi_WNOOS1-U2w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2024 07:55:28 -0500
From: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Krishna chaitanya chundru <quic_krichai@...cinc.com>,
Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] PCI: don't rely on of_platform_depopulate() for
reused OF-nodes
On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 5:10 PM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> [+to Rob]
>
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 11:33:22AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
> >
> > of_platform_depopulate() doesn't play nice with reused OF nodes - it
> > ignores the ones that are not marked explicitly as populated and it may
> > happen that the PCI device goes away before the platform device in which
> > case the PCI core clears the OF_POPULATED bit. We need to
> > unconditionally unregister the platform devices for child nodes when
> > stopping the PCI device.
>
> Rob, any concerns with this?
Yes, the flag bits are a mess. I don't have a better solution other
than perhaps what Bartosz suggests.
I was going to say we shouldn't really be mucking with the
OF_POPULATED flag outside the DT code, but then I grep'ed the tree. :(
Rob
Powered by blists - more mailing lists