On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 8:23 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 10/13/21 7:29 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 8:57 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> The clk and regulator frameworks expect clk/regulator consumer-devices
> >> to have info about the consumed clks/regulators described in the device's
> >> fw_node.
> >>
> >> To work around cases where this info is not present in the firmware tables,
> >> which is often the case on x86/ACPI devices, both frameworks allow the
> >> provider-driver to attach info about consumers to the clks/regulators
> >> when registering these.
> >>
> >> This causes problems with the probe ordering wrt drivers for consumers
> >> of these clks/regulators. Since the lookups are only registered when the
> >> provider-driver binds, trying to get these clks/regulators before then
> >> results in a -ENOENT error for clks and a dummy regulator for regulators.
> >>
> >> One case where we hit this issue is camera sensors such as e.g. the OV8865
> >> sensor found on the Microsoft Surface Go. The sensor uses clks, regulators
> >> and GPIOs provided by a TPS68470 PMIC which is described in an INT3472
> >> ACPI device. There is special platform code handling this and setting
> >> platform_data with the necessary consumer info on the MFD cells
> >> instantiated for the PMIC under: drivers/platform/x86/intel/int3472.
> >>
> >> For this to work properly the ov8865 driver must not bind to the I2C-client
> >> for the OV8865 sensor until after the TPS68470 PMIC gpio, regulator and
> >> clk MFD cells have all been fully setup.
> >>
> >> The OV8865 on the Microsoft Surface Go is just one example, all X86
> >> devices using the Intel IPU3 camera block found on recent Intel SoCs
> >> have similar issues where there is an INT3472 HID ACPI-device, which
> >> describes the clks and regulators, and the driver for this INT3472 device
> >> must be fully initialized before the sensor driver (any sensor driver)
> >> binds for things to work properly.
> >>
> >> On these devices the ACPI nodes describing the sensors all have a _DEP
> >> dependency on the matching INT3472 ACPI device (there is one per sensor).
> >>
> >> This allows solving the probe-ordering problem by delaying the enumeration
> >> (instantiation of the I2C-client in the ov8865 example) of ACPI-devices
> >> which have a _DEP dependency on an INT3472 device.
> >>
> >> The new acpi_dev_ready_for_enumeration() helper used for this is also
> >> exported because for devices, which have the enumeration_by_parent flag
> >> set, the parent-driver will do its own scan of child ACPI devices and
> >> it will try to enumerate those during its probe(). Code doing this such
> >> as e.g. the i2c-core-acpi.c code must call this new helper to ensure
> >> that it too delays the enumeration until all the _DEP dependencies are
> >> met on devices which have the new honor_deps flag set.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/acpi/scan.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >> include/acpi/acpi_bus.h | 5 ++++-
> >> 2 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/scan.c b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> >> index 5b54c80b9d32..efee6ee91c8f 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> >> @@ -796,6 +796,12 @@ static const char * const acpi_ignore_dep_ids[] = {
> >> NULL
> >> };
> >>
> >> +/* List of HIDs for which we honor deps of matching ACPI devs, when checking _DEP lists. */
> >> +static const char * const acpi_honor_dep_ids[] = {
> >> + "INT3472", /* Camera sensor PMIC / clk and regulator info */
> >> + NULL
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> static struct acpi_device *acpi_bus_get_parent(acpi_handle handle)
> >> {
> >> struct acpi_device *device = NULL;
> >> @@ -1757,8 +1763,12 @@ static void acpi_scan_dep_init(struct acpi_device *adev)
> >> struct acpi_dep_data *dep;
> >>
> >> list_for_each_entry(dep, &acpi_dep_list, node) {
> >> - if (dep->consumer == adev->handle)
> >> + if (dep->consumer == adev->handle) {
> >> + if (dep->honor_dep)
> >> + adev->flags.honor_deps = 1;
> >
> > Any concerns about doing
> >
> > adev->flags.honor_deps = dep->honor_dep;
> >
> > here?
>
> The idea is to set adev->flags.honor_deps even if the device has
> multiple deps and only one of them has the honor_dep flag set.
>
> If we just do:
>
> adev->flags.honor_deps = dep->honor_dep;
>
> Then adev->flags.honor_deps ends up having the honor_dep
> flag of the last dependency checked.
OK, but in that case dep_unmet may be blocking the enumeration of the
device even if the one in the acpi_honor_dep_ids[] list has probed
successfully.
Isn't that a concern?
> >
> >> +
> >> adev->dep_unmet++;
> >> + }
> >> }
> >> }
> >>
> >> @@ -1962,7 +1972,7 @@ static u32 acpi_scan_check_dep(acpi_handle handle, bool check_dep)
> >> for (count = 0, i = 0; i < dep_devices.count; i++) {
> >> struct acpi_device_info *info;
> >> struct acpi_dep_data *dep;
> >> - bool skip;
> >> + bool skip, honor_dep;
> >>
> >> status = acpi_get_object_info(dep_devices.handles[i], &info);
> >> if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
> >> @@ -1971,6 +1981,7 @@ static u32 acpi_scan_check_dep(acpi_handle handle, bool check_dep)
> >> }
> >>
> >> skip = acpi_info_matches_ids(info, acpi_ignore_dep_ids);
> >> + honor_dep = acpi_info_matches_ids(info, acpi_honor_dep_ids);
> >> kfree(info);
> >>
> >> if (skip)
> >> @@ -1984,6 +1995,7 @@ static u32 acpi_scan_check_dep(acpi_handle handle, bool check_dep)
> >>
> >> dep->supplier = dep_devices.handles[i];
> >> dep->consumer = handle;
> >> + dep->honor_dep = honor_dep;
> >>
> >> mutex_lock(&acpi_dep_list_lock);
> >> list_add_tail(&dep->node , &acpi_dep_list);
> >> @@ -2071,6 +2083,9 @@ static acpi_status acpi_bus_check_add_2(acpi_handle handle, u32 lvl_not_used,
> >>
> >> static void acpi_default_enumeration(struct acpi_device *device)
> >> {
> >> + if (!acpi_dev_ready_for_enumeration(device))
> >> + return;
> >
> > I'm not sure about this.
> >
> > First of all, this adds an acpi_device_is_present() check here which
> > potentially is a change in behavior and I'm not sure how it is related
> > to the other changes in this patch (it is not mentioned in the
> > changelog AFAICS).
> >
> > I'm saying "potentially", because if we get here at all,
> > acpi_device_is_present() has been evaluated already by
> > acpi_bus_attach().
>
> Right the idea was that for this code-path the extra
> acpi_device_is_present() check is a no-op since the only
> caller of acpi_default_enumeration() has already done
> that check before calling acpi_default_enumeration(),
> where as the is_present check is useful for users outside
> of the ACPI core code, like e.g. the i2c ACPI enumeration
> code.
>
> Although I see this is also called from
> acpi_generic_device_attach which comes into play when there
> is devicetree info embedded inside the ACPI tables.
That too, but generally speaking this change should at least be
mentioned in the changelog.
> > Now, IIUC, the new acpi_dev_ready_for_enumeration() is kind of an
> > extension of acpi_device_is_present(), so shouldn't it be called by
> > acpi_bus_attach() instead of the latter rather than from here?
>
> That is an interesting proposal. I assume you want this to replace
> the current acpi_device_is_present() call in acpi_bus_attach()
> then ?
That seems consistent to me.
> For the use-case at hand here that should work fine and it would also
> make the honor_deps flag work for devices which bind to the actual
> acpi_device (because we delay the device_attach()) or
> use an acpi_scan_handler.
>
> This would mean though that we can now have acpi_device-s where
> acpi_device_is_present() returns true, but which are not
> initialized (do not have device->flags.initialized set)
> that would be a new acpi_device state which we have not had
> before. I do not immediately forsee this causing issues,
> but still...
>
> If you want me to replace the current acpi_device_is_present() call
> in acpi_bus_attach() with the new acpi_dev_ready_for_enumeration()
> helper, let me know and I'll prepare a new version with this change
> (and run some tests with that new version).
I would prefer doing that to making acpi_default_enumeration() special
with respect to the handling of dependencies.
