05.06.2019 16:04, Thierry Reding пишет:
> On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 03:40:28PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> 05.06.2019 15:32, Thierry Reding пишет:
>>> On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 02:25:43PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>> 05.06.2019 11:28, Thierry Reding пишет:
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 07:07:42PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>>>> 04.06.2019 18:31, Thierry Reding пишет:
>>>>>>> From: Thierry Reding <treding@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When deferring probe, avoid logging a confusing error message. While at
>>>>>>> it, make the error message more informational.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <treding@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> drivers/gpu/host1x/dev.c | 5 ++++-
>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/host1x/dev.c b/drivers/gpu/host1x/dev.c
>>>>>>> index c55e2d634887..5a3f797240d4 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/host1x/dev.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/host1x/dev.c
>>>>>>> @@ -247,8 +247,11 @@ static int host1x_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> host->clk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, NULL);
>>>>>>> if (IS_ERR(host->clk)) {
>>>>>>> - dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to get clock\n");
>>>>>>> err = PTR_ERR(host->clk);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + if (err != -EPROBE_DEFER)
>>>>>>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to get clock: %d\n", err);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> return err;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The clock driver should be available at the time of host1x's probing on
>>>>>> all Tegra's because it is one of essential core drivers that become
>>>>>> available early during boot.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's the currently baked-in assumption. However, there can be any
>>>>> number of reasons for why the clocks may not show up as early as
>>>>> expected, as evidenced in the case of Tegra186.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess you're making this change for T186, is it because the BPMP
>>>>>> driver's probe getting deferred? If yes, won't it be possible to fix the
>>>>>> defer of the clock driver instead of making such changes in the affected
>>>>>> drivers?
>>>>>
>>>>> The reason why this is now happening on Tegra186 is because the BPMP is
>>>>> bound to an IOMMU to avoid getting faults from the new no-bypass policy
>>>>> that the ARM SMMU driver is implementing as of v5.2-rc1.
>>>>>
>>>>> As a result of binding to an IOMMU, the first probe of the BPMP driver
>>>>> will get deferred, so any driver trying to request a clock after that
>>>>> and before BPMP gets probed successfully the next time, any clk_get()
>>>>> calls will fail with -EPROBE_DEFER.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a bit unfortunate, but like I said, these kinds of things can
>>>>> happen, and probe deferral was designed specifically to deal with that
>>>>> kind of situation so that we wouldn't have to rely on all of these
>>>>> built-in assumptions that occasionally break.
>>>>>
>>>>> The driver also already handles deferred probe properly. The only thing
>>>>> that this patch really changes is to no longer consider -EPROBE_DEFER an
>>>>> error. It's in fact a pretty common situation in many drivers and should
>>>>> not warrant a kernel log message.
>>>>
>>>> You're trying to mask symptoms instead of curing the decease and it looks
>>>> like the decease could be cured.
>>>
>>> There's nothing here to cure. -EPROBE_DEFER was designed specifically to
>>> avoid having to play these kinds of games with initcall levels.
>>>
>>> What this patch tries to do is just to avoid printing an error message
>>> for something that is not an error. -EPROBE_DEFER is totally expected to
>>> happen, it's normal, it's not something that we should bother users with
>>> because things end up sorting themselves out in the end.
>>>
>>>> Won't something like this work for you?
>>>
>>> I'm sure we could find a number of ways to fix this. But there's no need
>>> to fix this because it's not broken. What is broken is that we output an
>>> error message when this happens and make an elephant out of a fly.
>>
>> Sure, this is absolutely not critical and deferred probe is doing its job.
>> But don't you agree that it's better to fix the root of the annoyance once
>> and for all?
>
> From my point of view deferred probe is the once and for all fix. Back
> before we had deferred probe, doing these kinds of initcall reordering
> tricks was fairly common and while such a change may fix one setup, it
> often ended up breaking others.
>
> Sorry, this is a lesson that we already learned a couple of years ago,
> no need to rehash it.
We had a success story in similar case of pinctrl vs GPIO driver probe
order, reordering the probe order fixed a lot of deferred probings and
improved boot up time a tad. Oh, that reminded me that the Stefan's
patch was never merged [0] :(
I'm trying to help, but seems not much I could do since you're in oppose ;)
[0] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/949776/
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
