On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 6:04 PM Dmitry Baryshkov
<dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 28/09/2021 04:13, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 5:56 PM Dmitry Baryshkov
> > <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> [Adding Stephen and linux-arm-msm to the CC list, missed on the patch Cc
> >> list]
> >>
> >> On 28/09/2021 00:58, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 1:48 PM Dmitry Baryshkov
> >>> <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Since the commit f7514a663016 ("of: property: fw_devlink: Add support
> >>>> for remote-endpoint") Linux kernel started parsing and adding devlinks
> >>>> for the remote-endpoint properties. However this brings more harm than
> >>>> good.
> >>>>
> >>>> For all the remote-endpoints in the graph two links are created. Thus
> >>>> each and every remote-endpoint ends up in the cyclic graph (instead of
> >>>> the original intent of catching a cycle of graph + non-graph link):
> >>>
> >>> Yes, I'm well aware of this. I even called this out in the commit
> >>> text. This creating of cycles and then catching and relaxing it is
> >>> intentional.
> >>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210330185056.1022008-1-saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx/
> >>
> >> What would be the reason two always create a cycle which gives no
> >> additional information? Maybe I'm just misunderstanding this piece of code.
> >
> > It's basically a tiny bit of busy work. Ulf and I planned to fix it
> > and we know how to. Just haven't gotten around to it since it doesn't
> > really break anything.
> >
> >> Regarding your commit message. Even if there is a non-remote-endpoint
> >> dependency, it will be hidden by the remote-endpoint cycle.
> >
> > That's the point. Because there's no way to tell without the driver
> > involvement, we basically need to ignore all dependencies between
> > those two devices pointing at each other.
> >
> >>
> >> And another consequence of remote-endpoint loops.
> >>
> >> Consider this part part of dmesg. One warning is correct (real cyclic
> >> dependency). Others are remote-endpoint spam. Can you spot, which ones?
> >>
> >> [ 7.032225] platform 1d87000.phy: Fixing up cyclic dependency with
> >> 1d84000.ufshc
> >> [ 21.760326] platform c440000.spmi:pmic@2:typec@1500: Fixing up cyclic
> >> dependency with c440000.spmi:pmic@2:pmic-tcpm
> >> [ 21.944849] platform c440000.spmi:pmic@2:pdphy@1700: Fixing up cyclic
> >> dependency with c440000.spmi:pmic@2:pmic-tcpm
> >> [ 23.541968] platform a600000.usb: Fixing up cyclic dependency with
> >> c440000.spmi:pmic@2:pmic-tcpm
> >> [ 30.354170] i2c 5-002b: Fixing up cyclic dependency with hdmi-out
> >
> > It's info, not warning if I'm not mistaken. If that's really a problem
> > we can make it a debug log. Not the end of the world.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> [ 0.381057] OF: remote-endpoint linking /soc@0/geniqup@9c0000/i2c@994000/hdmi-bridge@2b to /soc@0/mdss@ae00000/dsi@ae94000/ports/port@1/endpoint
> >>>> [ 0.394421] OF: remote-endpoint linking /soc@0/geniqup@9c0000/i2c@994000/hdmi-bridge@2b to /hdmi-out/port/endpoint
> >>>> [ 0.407007] OF: remote-endpoint linking /soc@0/phy@88e9000 to /soc@0/spmi@c440000/pmic@2/pmic-tcpm/connector/ports/port@0/endpoint@0
> >>>> [ 0.419648] OF: remote-endpoint linking /soc@0/usb@a6f8800/usb@a600000 to /soc@0/spmi@c440000/pmic@2/pmic-tcpm/ports/port@2/endpoint@0
> >>>> [ 0.432578] OF: remote-endpoint linking /soc@0/cci@ac4f000/i2c-bus@1/cam1@c0 to /soc@0/camss@ac6a000/ports/port@1/endpoint
> >>>> [ 0.444450] OF: remote-endpoint linking /soc@0/camss@ac6a000 to /soc@0/cci@ac4f000/i2c-bus@1/cam1@c0/port/endpoint
> >>>> [ 0.455292] OF: remote-endpoint linking /soc@0/mdss@ae00000/mdp@ae01000 to /soc@0/mdss@ae00000/dsi@ae94000/ports/port@0/endpoint
> >>>> [ 0.467210] OF: remote-endpoint linking /soc@0/mdss@ae00000/mdp@ae01000 to /soc@0/mdss@ae00000/dsi@ae96000/ports/port@0/endpoint
> >>>> [ 0.479239] OF: remote-endpoint linking /soc@0/mdss@ae00000/dsi@ae94000 to /soc@0/mdss@ae00000/mdp@ae01000/ports/port@0/endpoint
> >>>> [ 0.491147] OF: remote-endpoint linking /soc@0/mdss@ae00000/dsi@ae94000 to /soc@0/geniqup@9c0000/i2c@994000/hdmi-bridge@2b/ports/port@0/endpoint
> >>>> [ 0.504979] OF: remote-endpoint linking /soc@0/spmi@c440000/pmic@2/typec@1500 to /soc@0/spmi@c440000/pmic@2/pmic-tcpm/ports/port@0/endpoint
> >>>> [ 0.517958] OF: remote-endpoint linking /soc@0/spmi@c440000/pmic@2/pdphy@1700 to /soc@0/spmi@c440000/pmic@2/pmic-tcpm/ports/port@1/endpoint
> >>>> [ 0.565326] OF: remote-endpoint linking /hdmi-out to /soc@0/geniqup@9c0000/i2c@994000/hdmi-bridge@2b/ports/port@2/endpoint
> >>>>
> >>>> Under some conditions the device can become it's own supplier,
> >>>> preventing this device to be probed at all:
> >>>
> >>> I'm not sure this analysis is correct -- this shouldn't be happening.
> >>> If you go to the device link folder and cat "sync_state_only", I
> >>> expect it to be "1" in this case. Can you confirm that?
> >>
> >> It is "1".
> >
> > Thanks for confirming.
> >
> >>
> >>> Which means it won't block probing. Yes, the link itself is useless
> >>> and it'll get auto deleted once mdss probes and it's easy to not
> >>> create it in the first place. But this is definitely not your issue.
> >>>
> >>>> $ ls -l /sys/bus/platform/devices/ae00000.mdss/
> >>>> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Aug 4 15:13 consumer:platform:ae00000.mdss -> ../../../virtual/devlink/platform:ae00000.mdss--platform:ae00000.mdss
> >>>>
> >>>> I think that until of_link can be tought to handle bi-directional links
> >>>> on its own, we should not parse remote-endpoint properties. Thus the
> >>>> aforementioned commit should be reverted.
> >>>
> >>> Nak. remote-endpoint parsing is working as intended. I don't think the
> >>> analysis is correct.
> >>>
> >>> Can you please enable the logs in all these functions and attach the
> >>> log so we can see why it's not probing mdss?
> >>> device_link_add
> >>> device_links_check_suppliers
> >>> func fw_devlink_relax_link
> >>> fw_devlink_create_devlink
> >>
> >> After doing the analysis, I can confirm that I was too quick regarding
> >> the mdss links preventing it from being probed. Sorry about that.
> >>
> >> It all went up to the DP phy having a link with usb-c-connector. I was
> >> running the kernel 5.15-rc1, so your tcpm fix is already present.
> >> However my colleague has disabled the tcpm device (which I did not
> >> notice). So the driver did not call fw_devlink_purge_absent_suppliers().
> >> The devlink still exists:
> >
> > Let me take a closer look at this before the end of this week. Can you
> > point me to the exact DT changes that were made that's causing this
> > issue? It should help me debug the issue. I have a guess on what the
> > issue might be.
>
> Here is the kernel source:
> https://git.linaro.org/people/bryan.odonoghue/kernel.git/log/?h=5.15-rc1-camss-v2
>
> The change that causes PHY driver to silently stop probing, causing an
> avalanche of devices not being probed:
>
> https://git.linaro.org/people/bryan.odonoghue/kernel.git/commit/?h=5.15-rc1-camss-v2&id=d0bf3fc47c132968c302965154eeb5c88007fa73
Oh ok.... so a lot of the DT (and possible code) isn't even upstream.
I'll try to poke at this next week.
>
> >
> >>
> >> [ 53.426446] platform 88e9000.phy: probe deferral - wait for supplier
> >> connector
> >>
> >> However it is not present in the sysfs:
> >
> > Right, because it's not a device link yet. It's waiting for the device
> > to show up to create the device link (it has to for the grand scheme
> > of things to work correctly).
>
> Could you please make it somehow visible that there is a
> pending/blocking device link which is not visible yet
Yes, this is already available in sysfs. Look for the
waiting_for_supplier file under the device.
1 = waiting
0 = not waiting
> (or even better
> where it is pointing)?
This was already available in the debug logs, but it should now be
available in after the patch series I pointed to below:
cat <debugfs>/devices_deferred
-Saravana
>
> >
> >>
> >> root@qcom-armv8a:~# ls -l /sys/bus/platform/devices/88e9000.phy/
> >> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Aug 4 15:13
> >> consumer:platform:a600000.usb ->
> >> ../../../virtual/devlink/platform:88e9000.phy--platform:a600000.usb
> >> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Aug 4 15:13
> >> consumer:platform:af00000.clock-controller ->
> >> ../../../virtual/devlink/platform:88e9000.phy--platform:af00000.clock-controller
> >> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 4096 Aug 4 15:13 driver_override
> >> -r--r--r-- 1 root root 4096 Aug 4 15:13 modalias
> >> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Aug 4 15:13 of_node ->
> >> ../../../../firmware/devicetree/base/soc@0/phy@88e9000
> >> drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Aug 4 15:13 power
> >> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Aug 4 15:10 subsystem ->
> >> ../../../../bus/platform
> >> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Aug 4 15:13
> >> supplier:platform:100000.clock-controller ->
> >> ../../../virtual/devlink/platform:100000.clock-controller--platform:88e9000.phy
> >> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Aug 4 15:13
> >> supplier:platform:18200000.rsc:clock-controller ->
> >> ../../../virtual/devlink/platform:18200000.rsc:clock-controller--platform:88e9000.phy
> >> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Aug 4 15:13
> >> supplier:platform:18200000.rsc:pm8150-rpmh-regulators ->
> >> ../../../virtual/devlink/platform:18200000.rsc:pm8150-rpmh-regulators--platform:88e9000.phy
> >> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 4096 Aug 4 15:10 uevent
> >> -r--r--r-- 1 root root 4096 Aug 4 15:13
> >> waiting_for_supplier
> >>
> >> Thus it is not possible to spot this device link without
> >> CONFIG_DEBUG_DRIVER=y (or any similar debugging technique).
> >
> > I sent out some patches to make this easier. But doesn't look like
> > it'll land in 5.15.
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210915172808.620546-1-saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx/
>
> Thank you, I'll take a look.
>
> >
> >> If I re-enabled tcpm device or if I reverted remote-endpoint parsing, DP
> >> PHY probing would go fine. The DP PHY does not really depend on the
> >> connector (or TCPM) being present in the system. The driver will
> >> continue working w/o it. However it does not have a change to declare that.
> >>
> >> Furthermore I went back to the original case that caused you to add
> >> remote-endpoint support. The DSI-eDP bridge and eDP panel using the GPIO
> >> provided by that bridge. I think the proper fix for the original problem
> >> was implemented by the commit bf73537f411b ("drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86:
> >> Break GPIO and MIPI-to-eDP bridge into sub-drivers"). It split the
> >> DSI-eDP bridge driver into functional parts (devices), so that GPIO part
> >> and eDP parts are independent, thus breaking this cyclic dependency in a
> >> functional way. The remote-endpoint parsing is no longer necessary in
> >> this case (Stephen, please correct me if I'm wrong).
> >
> > Even if the original case doesn't need remote-endpoint to work
> > correctly and the cycle has been broken, that doesn't remove the need
> > for parsing remote-endpoint. There could be other cases like the
> > original case.
> >
> >> I still think that remote endpoint parsing does more harm and noise than
> >> good and thus should be reverted.
> >
> > I'll agree to disagree. I'm sure your issue can be fixed without
> > removing support for remote-endpoint parsing -- let's work on that
> > (I've asked for more details above).
> >
> > -Saravana
> >
>
>
> --
> With best wishes
> Dmitry
