Hi Saravana,
Thanks for the feedback!
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 at 21:27, Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 10:27 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 24/01/2024 04:37, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 10:12 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> > > <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On 23/01/2024 18:30, Peter Griffin wrote:
> > >>>>> dev_warn(wdt->dev, "Couldn't get RST_STAT register\n");
> > >>>>> else if (rst_stat & BIT(wdt->drv_data->rst_stat_bit))
> > >>>>> @@ -698,14 +699,6 @@ static int s3c2410wdt_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > >>>>> if (ret)
> > >>>>> return ret;
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> - if (wdt->drv_data->quirks & QUIRKS_HAVE_PMUREG) {
> > >>>>> - wdt->pmureg = syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle(dev->of_node,
> > >>>>> - "samsung,syscon-phandle");
> > >>>>> - if (IS_ERR(wdt->pmureg))
> > >>>>> - return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(wdt->pmureg),
> > >>>>> - "syscon regmap lookup failed.\n");
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Continuing topic from the binding: I don't see how you handle probe
> > >>>> deferral, suspend ordering.
> > >>>
> > >>> The current implementation is simply relying on exynos-pmu being
> > >>> postcore_initcall level.
> > >>>
> > >>> I was just looking around for any existing Linux APIs that could be a
> > >>> more robust solution. It looks like
> > >>>
> > >>> of_parse_phandle()
> > >>> and
> > >>> of_find_device_by_node();
> > >>>
> > >>> Are often used to solve this type of probe deferral issue between
> > >>> devices. Is that what you would recommend using? Or is there something
> > >>> even better?
> > >>
> > >> I think you should keep the phandle and then set device link based on
> > >> of_find_device_by_node(). This would actually improve the code, because
> > >> syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle() does not create device links.
> > >
> > > I kinda agree with this. Just because we no longer use a syscon API to
> > > find the PMU register address doesn't mean the WDT doesn't depend on
> > > the PMU.
> > >
> > > However, I think we should move to a generic "syscon" property. Then I
> > > can add support for "syscon" property to fw_devlink and then things
> > > will just work in terms of probe ordering, suspend/resume and also
> > > showing the dependency in DT even if you don't use the syscon APIs.
> > >
> > > Side note 1:
> > >
> > > I think we really should officially document a generic syscon DT
> > > property similar to how we have a generic "clocks" or "dmas" property.
> > > Then we can have a syscon_get_regmap() that's like so:
> > >
> > > struct regmap *syscon_get_regmap(struct device *dev)
> > > {
> > > return syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle(dev->of_node, "syscon");
> > > }
> > >
> > > Instead of every device defining its own bespoke DT property to do the
> > > exact same thing. I did a quick "back of the envelope" grep on this
> > > and I get about 143 unique properties just to get the syscon regmap.
> > > $ git grep -A1 syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle | grep '"' | sed -e
> > > 's/^[^"]*//' -e 's/"[^"]*$/"/' | sort | uniq | wc -l
> > > 143
> >
> > Sorry, generic "syscon" property won't fly with DT maintainers, because
> > there is no such thing as syscon in any of hardware.
>
> Then why do we allow a "syscon" compatible string and nodes? If the
> "syscon" property isn't clear enough, we can make it something like
> gpios and have it be <whatever>-syscon or have syscon-names property
> if you want to give it a name.
> 143 bespoke properties all to say "here are some registers I need to
> twiddle that's outside my regmap" doesn't seem great.
Some sort of standardization on the naming seems like a good idea to
me. Especially if it then means fw_devlink support can be added.
>
> > >
> > > Side note 2:
> > >
> > > How are we making sure that it's the exynos-pmu driver that ends up
> > > probing the PMU and not the generic syscon driver? Both of these are
> > > platform drivers. And the exynos PMU device lists both the exynos
> > > compatible string and the syscon property. Is it purely a link order
> > > coincidence?
> >
> > initcall ordering
>
> Both these drivers usr postcore_initcall(). So it's purely because
> soc/ is listed earlier in drivers/Makefile than mfd/. And as soon as
> drivers are made into modules this is going to break. This is
> terrible. If you want to have a modular system, this is going to throw
> in a wrench.
>
That does look to be a bug, or fragility at least with the current
upstream exynos-pmu driver. I think upstream Exynos most likely hasn't
encountered these types of issues because ARCH_EXYNOS has these
drivers as built-in, and as you say the alphabetical ordering in the
Makefile.
regards,
Peter.
