On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 01:30:23PM +0200, Jyri Sarha wrote:
> On 21/02/18 09:18, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 05:04:00PM +0200, Jyri Sarha wrote:
> >> On 20/02/18 14:03, Thierry Reding wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 01:28:48PM +0200, Jyri Sarha wrote:
> >>>> On 20/02/18 12:34, Thierry Reding wrote:
> >>>>>> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 10:06:22PM +0200, Jyri Sarha wrote:
> >>>>>>> Currently there is no way for a master drm driver to protect against an
> >>>>>>> attached panel driver from being unloaded while it is in use. The
> >>>>>>> least we can do is to indicate the usage by incrementing the module
> >>>>>>> reference count.
> > [...]
> >>>>> I disagree. module_get() is only going to protect you from unloading a
> >>>>> module that's in use, but there are other ways to unbind a driver from
> >>>>> the device and cause subsequent mayhem.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> struct device_link was "recently" introduced to fix that issue.
> >>>>
> >>>> Unfortunately I do not have time to do full fix for the issue, but in
> >>>> any case I think this patch is a step to the right direction. The module
> >>>> reference count should anyway be increased at least to know that the
> >>>> driver code remains in memory, even if the device is not there any more.
> >>>
> >>> I think device links are actually a lot easier to use and give you a
> >>> full solution for this. Essentially the only thing you need to do is add
> >>> a call to device_link_add() in the correct place.
> >>>
> >>> That said, it seems to me like drm_panel_bridge_add() is not a good
> >>> place to add this, because the panel/bridge does not follow a typical
> >>> consumer/supplier model. It is rather a helper construct with a well-
> >>> defined lifetime.
> >>>
> >>> What you do want to protect is the panel (the "parent" of the panel/
> >>> bridge) from going away unexpectedly. I think the best way to achieve
> >>> that is to make the link in drm_panel_attach() with something like
> >>> this:
> >>>
> >>> u32 flags = DL_FLAG_PM_RUNTIME | DL_FLAG_AUTOREMOVE;
> >>> struct device *consumer = connector->dev->dev;
> >>>
> >>> link = device_link_add(consumer, panel->dev, flags);
> >>> if (!link) {
> >>> dev_err(panel->dev, "failed to link panel %s to %s\n",
> >>> dev_name(panel->dev), dev_name(consumer));
> >>> return -EINVAL;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> Ideally I think we'd link the panel to the connector rather than the
> >>> top-level DRM device, but we don't have a struct device * for that, so
> >>> this is probably as good as it gets for now.
> >>
> >> Thanks for the hint. Adding the link indeed unbinds the master drm
> >> device when the panel is unloaded without any complaints.
> >>
> >> The annoying thing is that the master drm device does not probe again
> >> and bind when the supplier device becomes available again. However,
> >> forcing a manual bind brings the whole device back without a problem.
> >>
> >> Is there any trivial way to fix this?
> >
> > How about the below, would this work for you?
> >
> > Or is the device link added in the consumer's driver, hence is gone when
> > the consumer is unbound? If so, it should be added somewhere else,
> > or it shouldn't be removed on consumer unbind.
> >
> For some reason the patch bellow does not work. No even if I do not
> remove the link ever, after it has been made in the consumers probe.
Yes. The patch was only meant to work if the device link is *not*
added by the consumer, i.e. if it is added by the supplier, in a PCI
quirk, initcall or whatever.
> However, the device link works the way I want it to if I move the
> driver_deferred_probe_add() to device_links_unbind_consumers() right
> before the device_release_driver_internal(). This appears to works even
> if I have device_link_del() in the remove call of the consumer driver,
> but I have not yet checked how racy this solution is.
>
> If I put the driver_deferred_probe_add() right after the
> device_release_driver_internal() everything works if I do not try to
> delete the link in the consumer driver remove. However, leaving the link
> there forever after a successful probe does not feel right to me, even
> if in practice it usually would work fine.
The first of the two above-mentioned solutions might also be
acceptable.
However a general problem of adding the link in the consumer is that
the consumer has to be probed at least once. I'm not sure if that's
always guaranteed.
Leaving the device link around is fine if it represents a dependency
that exists permanently in the system. But that begs the question if
the consumer is at all the right place to add it. Perhaps the link
should rather be added when traversing the device tree and instantiating
the devices, and before ever probing them. E.g. if a panel DT node
references a backlight DT node, add a device link.
Thanks,
Lukas
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
