On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 06:02:15PM -0800, Saravana Kannan wrote: > The current implementation of fw_devlink is very inefficient because it > tries to get away without creating fwnode links in the name of saving > memory usage. Past attempts to optimize runtime at the cost of memory > usage were blocked with request for data showing that the optimization > made significant improvement for real world scenarios. > > We have those scenarios now. There have been several reports of boot > time increase in the order of seconds in this thread [1]. Several OEMs > and SoC manufacturers have also privately reported significant > (350-400ms) increase in boot time due to all the parsing done by > fw_devlink. > > So this patch series refactors fw_devlink to be more efficient. The key > difference now is the addition of support for fwnode links -- just a few > simple APIs. This also allows most of the code to be moved out of > firmware specific (DT mostly) code into driver core. > > This brings the following benefits: > - Instead of parsing the device tree multiple times (complexity was > close to O(N^3) where N in the number of properties) during bootup, > fw_devlink parses each fwnode node/property only once and creates > fwnode links. The rest of the fw_devlink code then just looks at these > fwnode links to do rest of the work. > > - Makes it much easier to debug probe issue due to fw_devlink in the > future. fw_devlink=on blocks the probing of devices if they depend on > a device that hasn't been added yet. With this refactor, it'll be very > easy to tell what that device is because we now have a reference to > the fwnode of the device. > > - Much easier to add fw_devlink support to ACPI and other firmware > types. A refactor to move the common bits from DT specific code to > driver core was in my TODO list as a prerequisite to adding ACPI > support to fw_devlink. This series gets that done. > > Laurent and Grygorii tested the v1 series and they saw boot time > improvment of about 12 seconds and 3 seconds, respectively. Now queued up to my tree. Note, I had to hand-apply patches 13 and 16 due to some reason (for 13, I have no idea, for 16 it was due to a previous patch applied to my tree that I cc:ed you on.) Verifying I got it all correct would be great :) thanks, greg k-h
