On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 03:26:44PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 3:20 PM Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 10:31 AM Russell King - ARM Linux > > <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 10:24:01AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 10:13 AM Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > +CC: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > On 08.01.2019 16:07, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 03:33:54PM +0100, Andrzej Hajda wrote: > > > > > >> On 08.01.2019 14:21, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > > > >>> On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 01:27:56PM +0100, Andrzej Hajda wrote: > > > > > >>>> On 08.01.2019 12:38, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > > > >>>>> On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 12:25:34PM +0100, Andrzej Hajda wrote: > > > > > >>>>>> Issues with device links have nothing to do with hotplugging, they are > > > > > >>>>>> generic - lifetime of the objects (drm_bridge, drm_panel) is just > > > > > >>>>>> slightly different of lifetime of device links, and this is racy even if > > > > > >>>>>> you do not want hotplugging. Moreover since drm_dev is not device (has > > > > > >>>>>> no associated struct device) assuming we can reuse its parent to create > > > > > >>>>>> device link results in circular dependencies. > > > > > >>>>> How about having the device links created depending on whether the > > > > > >>>>> main drm driver wants them or not - that would mean that Exynos > > > > > >>>>> could continue avoiding them, but others that want them can have > > > > > >>>>> the links? > > > > > >>>> That should be OK for Exynos. But regardless of Exynos device_links at > > > > > >>>> the current state will not work correctly with bridges/panels as I > > > > > >>>> described earlier. > > > > > >>> However, I'm not sure you're correct with your interpretation of the > > > > > >>> documentation. Firstly, the documentation says: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Another example for an inconsistent state would be a device link that > > > > > >>> represents a driver presence dependency, yet is added from the consumer's > > > > > >>> ->probe callback while the supplier hasn't probed yet: Had the driver core > > > > > >>> known about the device link earlier, it wouldn't have probed the consumer > > > > > >>> in the first place. The onus is thus on the consumer to check presence of > > > > > >>> the supplier after adding the link, and defer probing on non-presence. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> This is fine - if we add the device link from of_drm_find_bridge(), we > > > > > >>> will be in the consumer's ->probe function, and the supplier must have > > > > > >>> been probed for us to find the struct drm_bridge. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Supplier usually is registered in it's probe time, so there is short > > > > > >> period of time when supplier is available, but the probe is not yet > > > > > >> finished - quite unsafe, but not impossible, especially if there exists > > > > > >> some kind of notifications about resource appearance (MIPI-DSI case). > > > > > > At some point during the supplier probe, the resource becomes available > > > > > > to consumers. At that point, device links can be setup before the > > > > > > supplier has finished probing. So any driver that provides resources > > > > > > to another driver will, at some point during the provider's probe, > > > > > > make resources available, and therefore be a candidate for device links > > > > > > to be created _before_ the probe function has returned. > > > > > > > > > > > > What is a problem is if the provider publishes resources, and then fails > > > > > > its probe function, causing the resource to disappear. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But creating link to not-probed provider is still incorrect usage from > > > > > device_links framework PoV, and my tests showed indeed that device link > > > > > created before end of provider's probe does not work at all - and since > > > > > it is stated in the documentation I guess it is by design. > > > > > > > > Yes, it is. > > > > > > So is the regulator support and the use of it being proposed for the CCF > > > all going against the design of device links? In both those cases, > > > device links _can_ be created while the supplier is still in the probe > > > function by a consumer finding the resource. > > > > > > This seems fragile by design. > > > > Rafael, can you confirm? > > Let me quote from > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/driver-api/device_link.html : > > "When driver presence on the supplier is irrelevant and only correct > suspend/resume and shutdown ordering is needed, the device link may > simply be set up with the DL_FLAG_STATELESS flag. In other words, > enforcing driver presence on the supplier is optional." > > Which is exactly the case at hand here AFAICS. That is not what we're discussing. We are discussing using device links to solve the problem with DRM bridges which may be removed today from DRM without the rest of the DRM system being aware. -- RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down 622kbps up According to speedtest.net: 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
