Re: [PATCH v2 1/9] PM: domains: Delete usage of driver_deferred_probe_check_state()

[Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

* Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx> [220630 23:25]:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 4:26 PM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 5:11 PM Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 2:10 AM Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > * Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx> [220623 08:17]:
> > > > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 12:01 AM Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx> [220622 19:05]:
> > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 9:59 PM Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > > This issue is no directly related fw_devlink. It is a side effect of
> > > > > > > > removing driver_deferred_probe_check_state(). We no longer return
> > > > > > > > -EPROBE_DEFER at the end of driver_deferred_probe_check_state().
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, I understand the issue. But driver_deferred_probe_check_state()
> > > > > > > was deleted because fw_devlink=on should have short circuited the
> > > > > > > probe attempt with an  -EPROBE_DEFER before reaching the bus/driver
> > > > > > > probe function and hitting this -ENOENT failure. That's why I was
> > > > > > > asking the other questions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OK. So where is the -EPROBE_DEFER supposed to happen without
> > > > > > driver_deferred_probe_check_state() then?
> > > > >
> > > > > device_links_check_suppliers() call inside really_probe() would short
> > > > > circuit and return an -EPROBE_DEFER if the device links are created as
> > > > > expected.
> > > >
> > > > OK
> > > >
> > > > > > Hmm so I'm not seeing any supplier for the top level ocp device in
> > > > > > the booting case without your patches. I see the suppliers for the
> > > > > > ocp child device instances only.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hmmm... this is strange (that the device link isn't there), but this
> > > > > is what I suspected.
> > > >
> > > > Yup, maybe it's because of the supplier being a device in the child
> > > > interconnect for the ocp.
> > >
> > > Ugh... yeah, this is why the normal (not SYNC_STATE_ONLY) device link
> > > isn't being created.
> > >
> > > So the aggregated view is something like (I had to set tabs = 4 space
> > > to fit it within 80 cols):
> > >
> > >     ocp: ocp {         <========================= Consumer
> > >         compatible = "simple-pm-bus";
> > >         power-domains = <&prm_per>; <=========== Supplier ref
> > >
> > >                 l4_wkup: interconnect@44c00000 {
> > >             compatible = "ti,am33xx-l4-wkup", "simple-pm-bus";
> > >
> > >             segment@200000 {  /* 0x44e00000 */
> > >                 compatible = "simple-pm-bus";
> > >
> > >                 target-module@0 { /* 0x44e00000, ap 8 58.0 */
> > >                     compatible = "ti,sysc-omap4", "ti,sysc";
> > >
> > >                     prcm: prcm@0 {
> > >                         compatible = "ti,am3-prcm", "simple-bus";
> > >
> > >                         prm_per: prm@c00 { <========= Actual Supplier
> > >                             compatible = "ti,am3-prm-inst", "ti,omap-prm-inst";
> > >                         };
> > >                     };
> > >                 };
> > >             };
> > >         };
> > >     };
> > >
> > > The power-domain supplier is the great-great-great-grand-child of the
> > > consumer. It's not clear to me how this is valid. What does it even
> > > mean?
> > >
> > > Rob, is this considered a valid DT?
> >
> > Valid DT for broken h/w.
> 
> I'm not sure even in that case it's valid. When the parent device is
> in reset (when the SoC is coming out of reset), there's no way the
> descendant is functional. And if the descendant is not functional, how
> is the parent device powered up? This just feels like an incorrect
> representation of the real h/w.

It should be correct representation based on scanning the interconnects
and looking at the documentation. Some interconnect parts are wired
always-on and some interconnect instances may be dual-mapped.

We have a quirk to probe prm/prcm first with pdata_quirks_init_clocks().
Maybe that also now fails in addition to the top level interconnect
probing no longer producing -EPROBE_DEFER.

> > So the domain must be default on and then simple-pm-bus is going to
> > hold a reference to the domain preventing it from ever getting powered
> > off and things seem to work. Except what happens during suspend?
> 
> But how can simple-pm-bus even get a reference? The PM domain can't
> get added until we are well into the probe of the simple-pm-bus and
> AFAICT the genpd attach is done before the driver probe is even
> called.

The prm/prcm gets of_platform_populate() called on it early.

Regards,

Tony