On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 5:45 PM Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Wait, what's the difference between a real fix vs a long term fix? To > > me those are the same. > > Maybe the long term fix is you follow the phandle to the actual > resources, see it is present, and allow the probe? That brings you in > line with how things actually work with devices probing against > resources. > > I don't know how much work that is, since there is no uniform API to > follow a phandle to a resource. I think each phandle type has its own > helper. For an interrupt phandle you need to use of_irq_get(), for a > gpio phandle maybe of_get_named_gpio_flags(), for a reset phandle > __of_reset_control_get(), etc. That goes back to Rafael's reply (and I agree): "Also if the probe has already started, it may still return -EPROBE_DEFER at any time in theory, so as a rule the dependency is actually known to be satisfied when the probe has successfully completed." So waiting for the probe to finish is the right behavior/intentional for fw_devlink. > Because this does not sounds too simple, maybe you can find something > simpler which is a real fix for now, good enough that it will get > merged, and then you can implement this phandle following for the long > term fix? The simpler fix is really just this patch. I'm hoping Greg/Rafael see my point about doing the exception this way prevents things from getting worse will we address existing cases that need the flag. The long/proper fix is to the DSA framework. I have some ideas that I think will work but I've had time to get to (but on the top of my upstream work list). We can judge that after I send out the patches :) -Saravana
