On 2020-06-22 13:01, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 2020-06-22 10:10, Lee Jones wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>
>>> On 2020-06-22 03:50, Lee Jones wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 18 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2020-06-15 04:26, Lee Jones wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 14 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Lee,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm looking at 5.8-rc1.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only use of OF_MFD_CELL() where the same compatible is specified
>>>>>>> for multiple elements of a struct mfd_cell array is for compatible
>>>>>>> "stericsson,ab8500-pwm" in drivers/mfd/ab8500-core.c:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OF_MFD_CELL("ab8500-pwm",
>>>>>>> NULL, NULL, 0, 1, "stericsson,ab8500-pwm"),
>>>>>>> OF_MFD_CELL("ab8500-pwm",
>>>>>>> NULL, NULL, 0, 2, "stericsson,ab8500-pwm"),
>>>>>>> OF_MFD_CELL("ab8500-pwm",
>>>>>>> NULL, NULL, 0, 3, "stericsson,ab8500-pwm"),
>>>>>
>>>>> OF_MFD_CELL("ab8500-pwm",
>>>>> NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "stericsson,ab8500-pwm"),
>>>>>
>>>>> OF_MFD_CELL_REG("ab8500-pwm-mc",
>>>>> NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "stericsson,ab8500-pwm", 0),
>>>>> OF_MFD_CELL_REG("ab8500-pwm-mc",
>>>>> NULL, NULL, 0, 1, "stericsson,ab8500-pwm", 1),
>>>>> OF_MFD_CELL_REG("ab8500-pwm-mc",
>>>>> NULL, NULL, 0, 2, "stericsson,ab8500-pwm", 2),
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only .dts or .dtsi files where I see compatible "stericsson,ab8500-pwm"
>>>>>>> are:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/ste-ab8500.dtsi
>>>>>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/ste-ab8505.dtsi
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These two .dtsi files only have a single node with this compatible.
>>>>>>> Chasing back to .dts and .dtsi files that include these two .dtsi
>>>>>>> files, I see no case where there are multiple nodes with this
>>>>>>> compatible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So it looks to me like there is no .dts in mainline that is providing
>>>>>>> the three "stericsson,ab8500-pwm" nodes that drivers/mfd/ab8500-core.c
>>>>>>> is expecting. No case that there are multiple mfd child nodes where
>>>>>>> mfd_add_device() would assign the first of n child nodes with the
>>>>>>> same compatible to multiple devices.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So it appears to me that drivers/mfd/ab8500-core.c is currently broken.
>>>>>>> Am I missing something here?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If I am correct, then either drivers/mfd/ab8500-core.c or
>>>>>>> ste-ab8500.dtsi and ste-ab8505.dtsi need to be fixed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your analysis is correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, if I'm not overlooking anything, that is good news.
>>>>>
>>>>> Existing .dts source files only have one "ab8500-pwm" child. They already
>>>>> work correcly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Create a new compatible for the case of multiple children. In my example
>>>>> I will add "-mc" (multiple children) to the existing compatible. There
>>>>> is likely a better name, but this lets me provide an example.
>>>>>
>>>>> Modify drivers/mfd/ab8500-core.c to use the new compatible, and new .dts
>>>>> source files with multiple children use the new compatible:
>>>>>
>>>>> OF_MFD_CELL("ab8500-pwm",
>>>>> NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "stericsson,ab8500-pwm"),
>>>>>
>>>>> OF_MFD_CELL_REG("ab8500-pwm-mc",
>>>>> NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "stericsson,ab8500-pwm", 0),
>>>>> OF_MFD_CELL_REG("ab8500-pwm-mc",
>>>>> NULL, NULL, 0, 1, "stericsson,ab8500-pwm", 1),
>>>>> OF_MFD_CELL_REG("ab8500-pwm-mc",
>>>>> NULL, NULL, 0, 2, "stericsson,ab8500-pwm", 2),
>>>>>
>>>>> The "OF_MFD_CELL" entry is the existing entry, which will handle current
>>>>> .dts source files. The new "OF_MFD_CELL_REG" entries will handle new
>>>>> .dts source files.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but I'm not sure what the above exercise is supposed to solve.
>>>>
>>>> Could you explain it for me please?
>>>
>>> The OF_MFD_CELL() entry handles all of the existing .dts source files
>>> that only have one ab8500-pwm child nodes. So existing .dtb blobs
>>> continue to work.
>>>
>>> The OF_MFD_CELL_REG() entries will handle all of the new .dts source
>>> files that will have up to 3 ab8500-pwm child nodes.
>>>
>>> Compatibility is maintained for existing .dtb files. A new kernel
>>> version with the changes will support new .dtb files that contain
>>> multiple ab8500-pwm child nodes.
>>
>> I can see *what* you're trying to do. I was looking for an
>> explanation of *how* you think that will work. FWIW, I don't think
>> what you're proposing will work as you envisage. I thought that
>> perhaps I was missing something, which is why I requested further
>> explanation.
>>
>>>>> And of course the patch that creates OF_MFD_CELL_REG() needs to precede
>>>>> this change.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would remove the fallback code in the existing patch that tries to
>>>>> handle an incorrect binding. Just error out if the binding is not
>>>>> used properly.
>>>>
>>>> What fallback code?
>>>
>>> Based on reading the patch description, I expected some extra code to try
>>> to handle the case where the compatible in more than one struct mfd_cell
>>> entry is "stericsson,ab8500-pwm" and there are multiple ab8500-pwm child
>>> nodes.
>>>
>>> Looking at the actual code (which I had not done before), I see that the
>>> "best effort attempt to match" is keeping a list of child nodes that
>>> have already been used (mfd_of_node_list) and avoiding re-use of such
>>> nodes. This allows an invalid .dtb (one with multple "stericsson,ab8500-pwm"
>>> child nodes) to possibly be assigned unique child nodes for multiple
>>> struct mfd_cell entries to be "stericsson,ab8500-pwm".
>>>
>>> So it is confusing for me to call that "fallback code". It really is
>>> "best effort attempt to match" for a broken .dtb code.
>>>
>>> There should be no best effort for a broken .dtb. The broken .dtb should
>>> instead result in an error.
>>
>> The problem is, how can you tell the difference between a valid and a
>> broken FDT without pre-processing - which, as I explained in the
>> commit message, I am not prepared to do. We cannot test individually
>> since all configurations (e.g. no 'reg' property are valid on an
>> individual basis.
>
> If my proposed changes are made, then there are at least 3 ways to detect
> a broken FDT or prevent the problem caused by the broken FDT.
>
>
> 1) Use the validation process that uses the bindings to validate the
> devicetree source.
>
>
> 2) Modify patch 1/3. The small part of the patch to modify is:
>
> +static int mfd_match_of_node_to_dev(struct platform_device *pdev,
> + struct device_node *np,
> + const struct mfd_cell *cell)
> +{
> + struct mfd_of_node_entry *of_entry;
> + const __be32 *reg;
> + u64 of_node_addr;
> +
> + /* Skip devices 'disabled' by Device Tree */
> + if (!of_device_is_available(np))
> + return -ENODEV;
> +
> + /* Skip if OF node has previously been allocated to a device */
> + list_for_each_entry(of_entry, &mfd_of_node_list, list)
>
> Change:
>
> + if (of_entry->np == np)
> + return -EAGAIN;
>
> To:
>
> + if (of_entry->np == np) {
> + if (!cell->use_of_reg)
> + return -EINVAL;
> + else
> + return -EAGAIN;
>
> There may be a better choice than EINVAL, but I am just showing the method.
>
> You may also want to refactor this section of the patch slightly
> differently to achieve the same result. It was just easiest to
> show the suggested change the way I did it.
>
> The test that returns EINVAL detects the issue that the FDT does
> not match the binding (there is more one child node with the
> "stericsson,ab8500-pwm" compatible.
>
>
> 3) I'm not sure if the pre-parsing that is wanted is parsing of the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ that is not wanted
> devicetree or parsing of the struct mfd_cell array. If the mfd_cell
> array then solution 3 is not acceptable.
>
> A different change to a small part of patch 1/3. In mfd_add_devices(),
> validate parameter "cells". The validation could precede the existing
> code, or it could be folded into the existing for loop. The validation
> is checking for any other element of the cells array containing
> the same compatible value if cell->use_of_reg is not true for an element.
>
> If this validation occurs, then I think mfd_of_node_list, and all the
> associated code to deal with it is no longer needed. But I didn't
> look at this part in detail, so maybe I missed something.
>
> The validation is something like (untested):
>
> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF)
> for (i = 0; i < n_devs; i++) {
> this_cell = cells + i;
> if (!this_cell->use_of_reg) {
> for (j = 1; j < n_devs; j++) {
> if (j != i) {
> cell = cells + j;
> if (!strcmp(this_cell->of_compatible, cell->of_compatible))
> return -EINVAL;
> }
> }
> }
> }
>
>
>
>
>>
>> The best we can do is "best effort", to try and match each cell with
>> its requested OF node.
>>
>
