On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 8:18 AM Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hello Saravana,
>
> [+cc Hervé Codina]
>
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 17:18:01 -0800
> Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > After commit 4a032827daa8 ("of: property: Simplify of_link_to_phandle()"),
> > remote-endpoint properties created a fwnode link from the consumer device
> > to the supplier endpoint. This is a tiny bit inefficient (not buggy) when
> > trying to create device links or detecting cycles. So, improve this the
> > same way we improved finding the consumer of a remote-endpoint property.
> >
> > Fixes: 4a032827daa8 ("of: property: Simplify of_link_to_phandle()")
> > Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> After rebasing my own branch on v6.8-rc5 from v6.8-rc1 I started
> getting unexpected warnings during device tree overlay removal. After a
> somewhat painful bisection I identified this patch as the one that
> triggers it all.
Thanks for the report.
>
> > ---
> > --- a/drivers/of/property.c
> > +++ b/drivers/of/property.c
> > @@ -1232,7 +1232,6 @@ DEFINE_SIMPLE_PROP(pinctrl5, "pinctrl-5", NULL)
> > DEFINE_SIMPLE_PROP(pinctrl6, "pinctrl-6", NULL)
> > DEFINE_SIMPLE_PROP(pinctrl7, "pinctrl-7", NULL)
> > DEFINE_SIMPLE_PROP(pinctrl8, "pinctrl-8", NULL)
> > -DEFINE_SIMPLE_PROP(remote_endpoint, "remote-endpoint", NULL)
> > DEFINE_SIMPLE_PROP(pwms, "pwms", "#pwm-cells")
> > DEFINE_SIMPLE_PROP(resets, "resets", "#reset-cells")
> > DEFINE_SIMPLE_PROP(leds, "leds", NULL)
> > @@ -1298,6 +1297,17 @@ static struct device_node *parse_interrupts(struct device_node *np,
> > return of_irq_parse_one(np, index, &sup_args) ? NULL : sup_args.np;
> > }
> >
> > +static struct device_node *parse_remote_endpoint(struct device_node *np,
> > + const char *prop_name,
> > + int index)
> > +{
> > + /* Return NULL for index > 0 to signify end of remote-endpoints. */
> > + if (!index || strcmp(prop_name, "remote-endpoint"))
>
> There seem to be a bug here: "!index" should be "index > 0", as the
> comment suggests. Otherwise NULL is always returned.
Ah crap, I think you are right. It should have been "index". Not
"!index". But I tested this! Sigh. I probably screwed up my testing.
Please send out a Fix for this.
Geert, we got excited too soon. :(
> I am going to send a quick patch for that, but haven't done so yet
> because it still won't solve the problem, so I wanted to open the topic
> here without further delay.
>
> Even with the 'index > 0' fix I'm still getting pretty much the same:
This part is confusing though. If I read your DT correctly, there's a
cycle between platform:panel-dsi-lvds and i2c:13-002c. And fw_devlink
should not be enforcing any ordering between those devices ever.
I'm surprised that in your "working" case, fw_devlink didn't detect
any cycle. It should have. If there's any debugging to do, that's the
one we need to debug.
>
> [ 34.836781] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> [ 34.841401] WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 204 at drivers/base/devres.c:1064 devm_kfree+0x8c/0xfc
> ...
> [ 35.024751] Call trace:
> [ 35.027199] devm_kfree+0x8c/0xfc
> [ 35.030520] devm_drm_panel_bridge_release+0x54/0x64 [drm_kms_helper]
> [ 35.036990] devres_release_group+0xe0/0x164
> [ 35.041264] i2c_device_remove+0x38/0x9c
> [ 35.045196] device_remove+0x4c/0x80
> [ 35.048774] device_release_driver_internal+0x1d4/0x230
> [ 35.054003] device_release_driver+0x18/0x24
> [ 35.058279] bus_remove_device+0xcc/0x10c
> [ 35.062292] device_del+0x15c/0x41c
> [ 35.065786] device_unregister+0x18/0x34
> [ 35.069714] i2c_unregister_device+0x54/0x88
> [ 35.073988] of_i2c_notify+0x98/0x224
> [ 35.077656] blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x6c/0xa0
> [ 35.082543] __of_changeset_entry_notify+0x100/0x16c
> [ 35.087515] __of_changeset_revert_notify+0x44/0x78
> [ 35.092398] of_overlay_remove+0x114/0x1c4
> ...
>
> By comparing the two versions I found that before removing the overlay:
>
> * in the "working" case (with this patch reverted) I have:
>
> # ls /sys/class/devlink/ | grep 002c
> platform:hpbr--i2c:13-002c
> platform:panel-dsi-lvds--i2c:13-002c
Can you check the "status" and "sync_state_only" file in this folder
and tell me what it says?
Since these devices have a cyclic dependency between them, it should
have been something other than "not tracked" and "sync_state_only"
should be "1". But my guess is you'll see "active" and "0".
> platform:regulator-sys-1v8--i2c:13-002c
> regulator:regulator.31--i2c:13-002c
> #
>
> * in the "broken" case (v6.8-rc5 + s/!index/index > 0/ as mentioned):
>
> # ls /sys/class/devlink/ | grep 002c
> platform:hpbr--i2c:13-002c
> platform:regulator-sys-1v8--i2c:13-002c
> regulator:regulator.30--i2c:13-002c
> #
>
> So in the latter case the panel-dsi-lvds--i2c:13-002c link is missing.
> I think it gets created but later on removed. Here's a snippet of the
> kernel log when that happens:
>
> [ 9.578279] ----- cycle: start -----
> [ 9.578283] /soc@0/bus@30800000/i2c@30ad0000/i2cmux@70/i2c@3/dsi-lvds-bridge@2c: cycle: depends on /panel-dsi-lvds
> [ 9.578308] /panel-dsi-lvds: cycle: depends on /soc@0/bus@30800000/i2c@30ad0000/i2cmux@70/i2c@3/dsi-lvds-bridge@2c
> [ 9.578329] ----- cycle: end -----
> [ 9.578334] platform panel-dsi-lvds: Fixed dependency cycle(s) with /soc@0/bus@30800000/i2c@30ad0000/i2cmux@70/i2c@3/dsi-lvds-bridge@2c
> ...
Somewhere in this area, I'm thinking you'll also see "device:
'i2c:13-002c--platform:panel-dsi-lvds': device_add" do you not? And if
you enabled device link logs, you'll see that it was "sync state only"
link.
> [ 9.590620] /panel-dsi-lvds Dropping the fwnode link to /soc@0/bus@30800000/i2c@30ad0000/i2cmux@70/i2c@3/dsi-lvds-bridge@2c
> ...
> [ 9.597280] ----- cycle: start -----
> [ 9.597283] /panel-dsi-lvds: cycle: depends on /soc@0/bus@30800000/i2c@30ad0000/i2cmux@70/i2c@3/dsi-lvds-bridge@2c
> [ 9.602781] /soc@0/bus@30800000/i2c@30ad0000/i2cmux@70/i2c@3/dsi-lvds-bridge@2c: cycle: depends on /panel-dsi-lvds
> [ 9.607581] ----- cycle: end -----
> [ 9.607585] i2c 13-002c: Fixed dependency cycle(s) with /panel-dsi-lvds
> [ 9.614217] device: 'platform:panel-dsi-lvds--i2c:13-002c': device_add
> ...
> [ 9.614277] /soc@0/bus@30800000/i2c@30ad0000/i2cmux@70/i2c@3/dsi-lvds-bridge@2c Dropping the fwnode link to /panel-dsi-lvds
> [ 9.614369] /soc@0/bus@30800000/i2c@30ad0000/i2cmux@70/i2c@3/dsi-lvds-bridge@2c Dropping the fwnode link to /regulator-dock-sys-1v8
> ...
> [ 9.739840] panel-simple panel-dsi-lvds: Dropping the link to 13-002c
> [ 9.739846] device: 'i2c:13-002c--platform:panel-dsi-lvds': device_unregister
Oh yeah, see. The "device_add" I expected earlier is getting removed here.
> [ 10.247037] sn65dsi83 13-002c: Dropping the link to panel-dsi-lvds
> [ 10.247049] device: 'platform:panel-dsi-lvds--i2c:13-002c': device_unregister
>
> And here's the relevant portion of my device tree overlay:
>
> --------------------8<--------------------
>
I think the eventual fix would be this series + adding a
"post-init-providers" property to the device that's supposed to probe
first and point it to the device that's supposed to probe next. Do
this at the device node level, not the endpoint level.
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240221233026.2915061-1-saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx/
-Saravana
> /dts-v1/;
> /plugin/;
>
> &{/}
> {
> panel_dsi_lvds: panel-dsi-lvds {
> compatible = "auo,g133han01.1";
>
> ports {
> #address-cells = <1>;
> #size-cells = <0>;
> port@0{
> reg = <0>;
> dual-lvds-odd-pixels;
> panel_dsi_lvds_in0: endpoint {
> remote-endpoint = <&sn65dsi84_out0>;
> };
> };
>
> port@1{
> reg = <1>;
> dual-lvds-even-pixels;
> panel_dsi_lvds_in1: endpoint {
> remote-endpoint = <&sn65dsi84_out1>;
> };
> };
> };
> };
> };
>
> &i2c5_ch3 {
> dsi-lvds-bridge@2c {
> compatible = "ti,sn65dsi84";
> reg = <0x2c>;
> vcc-supply = <®_sys_1v8>;
>
> ports {
> #address-cells = <1>;
> #size-cells = <0>;
>
> port@0 {
> reg = <0>;
>
> sn65dsi84_from_bridge: endpoint {
> remote-endpoint = <&hpbr_source>;
> data-lanes = <1 2 3 4>;
> };
> };
> port@2 {
> reg = <2>;
>
> sn65dsi84_out0: endpoint {
> remote-endpoint = <&panel_dsi_lvds_in0>;
> };
> };
> port@3 {
> reg = <3>;
>
> sn65dsi84_out1: endpoint {
> remote-endpoint = <&panel_dsi_lvds_in1>;
> };
> };
> };
> };
> };
>
> --------------------8<--------------------
>
> That's all I could get at this point. Any clues for further
> investigation?
>
> Best regards,
> Luca
>
> --
> Luca Ceresoli, Bootlin
> Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
> https://bootlin.com
