On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:29 AM 'Tomi Valkeinen' via kernel-team <kernel-team@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 21/11/2020 04:02, Saravana Kannan wrote: > > The current implementation of fw_devlink is very inefficient because it > > tries to get away without creating fwnode links in the name of saving > > memory usage. Past attempts to optimize runtime at the cost of memory > > usage were blocked with request for data showing that the optimization > > made significant improvement for real world scenarios. > > > > We have those scenarios now. There have been several reports of boot > > time increase in the order of seconds in this thread [1]. Several OEMs > > and SoC manufacturers have also privately reported significant > > (350-400ms) increase in boot time due to all the parsing done by > > fw_devlink. > > > > So this patch series refactors fw_devlink to be more efficient. The key > > difference now is the addition of support for fwnode links -- just a few > > simple APIs. This also allows most of the code to be moved out of > > firmware specific (DT mostly) code into driver core. > > > > This brings the following benefits: > > - Instead of parsing the device tree multiple times (complexity was > > close to O(N^3) where N in the number of properties) during bootup, > > fw_devlink parses each fwnode node/property only once and creates > > fwnode links. The rest of the fw_devlink code then just looks at these > > fwnode links to do rest of the work. > > > > - Makes it much easier to debug probe issue due to fw_devlink in the > > future. fw_devlink=on blocks the probing of devices if they depend on > > a device that hasn't been added yet. With this refactor, it'll be very > > easy to tell what that device is because we now have a reference to > > the fwnode of the device. > > > > - Much easier to add fw_devlink support to ACPI and other firmware > > types. A refactor to move the common bits from DT specific code to > > driver core was in my TODO list as a prerequisite to adding ACPI > > support to fw_devlink. This series gets that done. > > > > Laurent and Grygorii tested the v1 series and they saw boot time > > improvment of about 12 seconds and 3 seconds, respectively. > > Tested v2 on OMAP4 SDP. With my particular config, boot time to starting init went from 18.5 seconds > to 12.5 seconds. > > Tomi Rafael, Friendly reminder for a review. -Saravana
