[...]
> > >
> > > Device-A {
> > > compatible="foo";
> > >
> > > Device-B {
> > > compatible="flam";
> > > power-domains = <&Device-C>;
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > Device-C {
> > > compatible="bar";
> > >
> > > Device-D {
> > > compatible="baz";
> > > power-domains = <&Device-A>;
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > Legend:
> > > I'll use X -> Y to indicate links where X is the consumer and Y is the supplier.
> > > I'll call out the link types as fwnode or device links.
> > > If I don't explicitly state otherwise, when I say device links, I mean
> > > stateful/managed device link that is NOT sync-state-only device links.
> > >
> > > I think your first question is asking about fwnode link. So I'll answer that.
> > >
> > > fwnode links are created from the actual nodes that list the
> > > dependencies. So in this case from device-B -> device-C and device-D
> > > -> device-A. It needs to be done this way for a couple of reasons. But
> > > to answer your question on "why do this when Device-B doesn't have a
> > > compatible string?":
> > >
> > > 1. Not all devices have compatible strings (in an ideal world this
> > > won't be the case). So Device-A would create a struct device for
> > > Device-B, set the of_node/fwnode to point to Device-B DT node. Then
> > > device-B gets probed, etc. In those cases, we want the device links to
> > > be created between device-B -> device-C and NOT from device-A ->
> > > device-C. Because if we did follow that logic, we'll get device-A ->
> > > device-C and device-C -> device-A. This obviously can't work because
> > > it's a cyclic dependency and fw_devlink will have to give up on these.
> > >
> > > 2. When device-C is added (assuming device-A is added already), we
> > > need to create a sync-state-only device link from device-A to device-C
> > > as a proxy for the future device-B -> device-C device link that'll
> > > come up. This is to make sure device-C's sync_state() doesn't fire too
> > > early. So the way fw_devlink can tell apart device-A's real dependency
> > > (none in this case) vs device-B's dependency it's proxying for is by
> > > the fact the fwnode link is from device-B DT -> device-C DT.
> > >
> > > Hope that makes sense.
> >
> > Yes, it does and I understand that it may become complicated in some
> > cases. If you get the time to put together an LWN article about
> > fw_devlinks, I would certainly read it. :-)
> >
> > However, at least for power-domains, the DT example you describe above
> > is an invalid description of a HW. It doesn't make sense to try to
> > support if for fw_devlink, at least in my opinion. Let me elaborate.
> >
> > So, I assume you have left out the #power-domain-cells property (for
> > simplicity) for Device-A and Device-C, as those seem to be the
> > power-domain providers.
>
> Yes, but also because I don't want you to take these dependencies too
> literally. I should have just used "depends-on =" as a standing in
> fake property to make my point. And what "depends-on" maps to in each
> DT node could be any one of the properties that point to a supplier.
>
> The TLDR for this entire email is: You can't transfer the dependency
> requirement of a child to its parent just because the child doesn't
> have a "compatible" property (that's exactly what your patch was
> doing). The incorrect creation of a cyclic dependency is one example
> of why it's wrong.
>
> > *) If Device-B is a consumer of Device-C, it also means that Device-A
> > must be assigned as the child-power-domain to Device-C's power-domain.
>
> This statement doesn't make any sense. If Device-B is the actual
> consumer of device-C, why the heck should Device-A be assigned as the
> child-power domain of device-C. Device-B should be assigned as the
> child-power domain of device-C. Device-A could be on a completely
> different power domain and not depend on Device-C for anything.
>
> > **) If Device-D is the consumer of Device-A, it also means that
> > Device-C must be assigned as the child-power-domain to Device-A's
> > power-domain.
>
> Similar comment here about device-D being the child power domain to
> Device-A. Read further below about cycles.
Well, I assumed the usual way of how we treat child nodes for power-domains.
In any case, the description is wrong from the HW point of view -
power-domains can't be described like that.
>
> > This simply can't be right from the HW point of view - and we don't
> > support this in the Linux kernel anyway.
>
> That's my point. By doing what you wanted to do, you are making
> Device-A dependent on Device-C and Device-C dependent on Device-A.
> Which makes no sense.
Exactly.
If that configuration exists in DT, why should we bother to support it
with fw_devlinks, it's broken anyway.
>
> > A power-domain can not be
> > both parent and child to another power-domain. In other words, cyclic
> > dependencies can't exist for power-domains, as it would be a wrong
> > description of the HW.
>
> Real cyclic dependencies can't exist between any HW -- doesn't matter
> if it's a power domain or not. That'd just be wrong.
>
> > I wonder if the similar reasoning is applicable for other types of
> > resources, like clocks and regulators, for example.
>
> So the example I gave definitely happens between two PMIC in one of
> the MSM chips. Forgot which one. If you follow what you suggested,
> we'll end up with both the devices not probing because they are
> waiting on each other to probe.
>
> Also, to go back to my main point, don't focus too much on one
> framework/property. In my example above, Device-D could be dependent
> on Device-A for a clock and you'll hit the same problem.
Well, again, that would not be a correct description of the HW, but I
get your point.
[...]
> > > >
> > > > Would you mind elaborating for my understanding and perhaps point me
> > > > to an example where it will break?
> > >
> > > So if you did this, it'll break:
> > > (1) the probe of device-A/device-C due to cyclic dependencies. Really
> > > no, because fw_devlink will just stop enforcing ordering between
> > > device-A and device-C if it detects a cycle. But if there was a real
> > > dependency (can me multiple links deep) between device-A -> device-C,
> > > that would no longer get enforced.
> >
> > As I said above, cyclic dependencies don't exist for power-domains.
>
> As I said above, *real* cyclic dependencies don't exist for anything.
>
> > > (2) It'd break sync_state() correctness for device-B -> device-C dependency.
> >
> > I don't see that. Again, because power-domain providers can't be
> > described in a cyclic way in DT.
>
> I think I answered this above. Change one of the "power-domains"
> property to clocks (or one of the many properties fw_devlink supports)
> and you'll have the same issue I described.
>
> > >
> > > Hope that helps.
> > >
> >
> > Perhaps, renaming the flag to "non-cyclic" would be an option? As it
> > seems like that is what this boils done to, right?
>
> No property is truly wanting to create a cycle. So if you were to
> create such a flag, every property should set it. See my TLDR above.
Well, I assume there are some valid cases where cyclic dependencies
are okay, like the "remote-endpoint" DT property, for example? No?
My point is, we are assuming there may be cyclic dependencies for all
the DT properties we parse for fw_devlink, while in fact those should
exist only for a few cases, right?
Doesn't the additional parsing and creation of links, to deal with
cyclic dependencies come with an overhead? If so - an option could be
to let it hurt only those properties that really need it.
[...]
Kind regards
Uffe
