On 8/16/19 1:52 PM, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 8/16/19 8:23 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 07:05:06AM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>> i Greg,
>>>
>>> On 8/16/19 2:10 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 08:09:19PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>>> Hi Saravana,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8/15/19 6:50 PM, Saravana Kannan wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 10:20 PM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/9/19 10:00 PM, Saravana Kannan wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 7:57 PM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Saravana,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 7/31/19 3:17 PM, Saravana Kannan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Add device-links to track functional dependencies between devices
>>>>>>>>>> after they are created (but before they are probed) by looking at
>>>>>>>>>> their common DT bindings like clocks, interconnects, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Having functional dependencies automatically added before the devices
>>>>>>>>>> are probed, provides the following benefits:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Optimizes device probe order and avoids the useless work of
>>>>>>>>>> attempting probes of devices that will not probe successfully
>>>>>>>>>> (because their suppliers aren't present or haven't probed yet).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For example, in a commonly available mobile SoC, registering just
>>>>>>>>>> one consumer device's driver at an initcall level earlier than the
>>>>>>>>>> supplier device's driver causes 11 failed probe attempts before the
>>>>>>>>>> consumer device probes successfully. This was with a kernel with all
>>>>>>>>>> the drivers statically compiled in. This problem gets a lot worse if
>>>>>>>>>> all the drivers are loaded as modules without direct symbol
>>>>>>>>>> dependencies.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Supplier devices like clock providers, interconnect providers, etc
>>>>>>>>>> need to keep the resources they provide active and at a particular
>>>>>>>>>> state(s) during boot up even if their current set of consumers don't
>>>>>>>>>> request the resource to be active. This is because the rest of the
>>>>>>>>>> consumers might not have probed yet and turning off the resource
>>>>>>>>>> before all the consumers have probed could lead to a hang or
>>>>>>>>>> undesired user experience.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Some frameworks (Eg: regulator) handle this today by turning off
>>>>>>>>>> "unused" resources at late_initcall_sync and hoping all the devices
>>>>>>>>>> have probed by then. This is not a valid assumption for systems with
>>>>>>>>>> loadable modules. Other frameworks (Eg: clock) just don't handle
>>>>>>>>>> this due to the lack of a clear signal for when they can turn off
>>>>>>>>>> resources. This leads to downstream hacks to handle cases like this
>>>>>>>>>> that can easily be solved in the upstream kernel.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> By linking devices before they are probed, we give suppliers a clear
>>>>>>>>>> count of the number of dependent consumers. Once all of the
>>>>>>>>>> consumers are active, the suppliers can turn off the unused
>>>>>>>>>> resources without making assumptions about the number of consumers.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> By default we just add device-links to track "driver presence" (probe
>>>>>>>>>> succeeded) of the supplier device. If any other functionality provided
>>>>>>>>>> by device-links are needed, it is left to the consumer/supplier
>>>>>>>>>> devices to change the link when they probe.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> v1 -> v2:
>>>>>>>>>> - Drop patch to speed up of_find_device_by_node()
>>>>>>>>>> - Drop depends-on property and use existing bindings
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> v2 -> v3:
>>>>>>>>>> - Refactor the code to have driver core initiate the linking of devs
>>>>>>>>>> - Have driver core link consumers to supplier before it's probed
>>>>>>>>>> - Add support for drivers to edit the device links before probing
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> v3 -> v4:
>>>>>>>>>> - Tested edit_links() on system with cyclic dependency. Works.
>>>>>>>>>> - Added some checks to make sure device link isn't attempted from
>>>>>>>>>> parent device node to child device node.
>>>>>>>>>> - Added way to pause/resume sync_state callbacks across
>>>>>>>>>> of_platform_populate().
>>>>>>>>>> - Recursively parse DT node to create device links from parent to
>>>>>>>>>> suppliers of parent and all child nodes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> v4 -> v5:
>>>>>>>>>> - Fixed copy-pasta bugs with linked list handling
>>>>>>>>>> - Walk up the phandle reference till I find an actual device (needed
>>>>>>>>>> for regulators to work)
>>>>>>>>>> - Added support for linking devices from regulator DT bindings
>>>>>>>>>> - Tested the whole series again to make sure cyclic dependencies are
>>>>>>>>>> broken with edit_links() and regulator links are created properly.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> v5 -> v6:
>>>>>>>>>> - Split, squashed and reordered some of the patches.
>>>>>>>>>> - Refactored the device linking code to follow the same code pattern for
>>>>>>>>>> any property.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> v6 -> v7:
>>>>>>>>>> - No functional changes.
>>>>>>>>>> - Renamed i to index
>>>>>>>>>> - Added comment to clarify not having to check property name for every
>>>>>>>>>> index
>>>>>>>>>> - Added "matched" variable to clarify code. No functional change.
>>>>>>>>>> - Added comments to include/linux/device.h for add_links()
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> v7 -> v8:
>>>>>>>>>> - Rebased on top of linux-next to handle device link changes in [1]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> v8 -> v9:
>>>>>>>>>> - Fixed kbuild test bot reported errors (docs and const)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Some maintainers have strong opinions about whether change logs should be:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (1) only in patch 0
>>>>>>>>> (2) only in the specific patches that are changed
>>>>>>>>> (3) both in patch 0 and in the specific patches that are changed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can adapt to any of the three styles. But for style "(1)" please
>>>>>>>>> list which specific patch has changed for each item in the change list.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for the context Frank. I'm okay with (1) or (2) but I'll stick
>>>>>>>> with (1) for this series. Didn't realize there were options (2) and
>>>>>>>> (3). Since you started reviewing from v7, I'll do that in the future
>>>>>>>> updates? Also, I haven't forgotten your emails. Just tied up with
>>>>>>>> something else for a few days. I'll get to your emails next week.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, starting with future updates is fine, no need to redo the v9
>>>>>>> change logs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No problem on the timing. I figured you were busy or away from the
>>>>>>> internet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm replying to your comments on the other 3 patches. Okay with a
>>>>>> majority of them. I'll wait for your reply to see where we settle for
>>>>>> some of the points before I send out any patches though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For now I'm thinking of sending them as separate clean up patches so
>>>>>> that Greg doesn't have to deal with reverts in his "next" branch. We
>>>>>> can squash them later if we really need to rip out what's in there and
>>>>>> push it again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Saravana
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please do not do separate clean up patches. The series that Greg has is
>>>>> not ready for acceptance and I am going to ask him to revert it as we
>>>>> work through the needed changes.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suspect there will be at least two more versions of the series. The
>>>>> first is to get the patches I commented in good shape. Then I will
>>>>> look at the patches later in the series to see how they fit into the
>>>>> big picture.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the end, there should be one coherent patch series that implements
>>>>> the feature.
>>>>
>>>> Incremental patches to fix up the comments and documentation is fine, no
>>>> need to respin the whole mess.
>>>
>>> The problem is that the whole thing is a "mess" at this point. I expect
>>> the series to go through at least two or three more versions.
>>
>> I'm confused. All I see so far is objections about some documentation
>> in comments that can be cleaned up, and a disagreement about the name of
>> some things (naming is hard, tie goes to the submitter).
>
> Yes naming is hard. No,tie does not go to the submitter is the naming
^^ if
-Frank
> makes the code difficult to understand.
>
> Naming is one of the reasons why I have found this series so difficult
> to understand.
>
>
>> But no logic issues, right? Documentation and names can be fixed
>> anytime, the logic is all working properly, right?
>
> Yes, there are logic issues. I do not agree will all of the explanations
> in the replies.
>
> Without going into detail about all the issues, one key is that I
> need to see an example of the edit_links() function, which Saravana
> says he will provide. I don't want a bunch of ad hoc edit_links()
> functions that each deal with cyclic dependencies in different ways.
>
> There is also disagreement over whether the complexity of the
> dev->has_edit_links field and driver_edit_links() are needed.
>
> My biggest meta-issue is that this patch series is papering over the
> real problem that prompted the patches. The real problem is that the
> boot loader has enabled a power supply, but the power subsystem is
> not aware that there is an active consumer. I have been hopeful that
> this series can be implemented in a way that makes me comfortable
> that it is _not_ just papering over the true problem. I still
> retain that hope.
>
>
>>
>> What am I missing here?
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> greg k-h
>>
>
> -Frank
>
