On Fri, Dec 23, 2022 at 12:24:22PM +0100, Stefan Wahren wrote:
> Hi Laurent,
> hi Umang,
>
> Am 22.12.22 um 18:35 schrieb Laurent Pinchart:
> > Hi Umang,
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 01:59:28PM +0530, Umang Jain wrote:
> > > On 12/21/22 6:40 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 01:14:59PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 02:14:04PM +0530, Umang Jain wrote:
> > > > > > Create a proper per device platorm_device structure for all the child
> > > > > > devices that needs to be registered by vchiq platform driver. Replace
> > > > > > the vchiq_register_child() with platform_add_devices() to register the
> > > > > > child devices.
> > > > > This explains what the patch does, but not why.
> > > > >
> > > > > > This is part of an effort to address TODO item "Get rid of all non
> > > > > > essential global structures and create a proper per device structure"
> > > > > And this explains part of the reason only. Could you please expand the
> > > > > commit message with the reasoning behind this change ? It's not clear
> > > > > from the change below why this is needed and good.
> > > Ok, I thought the TODO reference was sufficient but I'll expand on it.
> > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Umang Jain <umang.jain@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > .../interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c | 59 ++++++++++---------
> > > > > > 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c
> > > > > > index 22de23f3af02..fa42ea3791a7 100644
> > > > > > --- a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c
> > > > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c
> > > > > > @@ -65,8 +65,29 @@ int vchiq_susp_log_level = VCHIQ_LOG_ERROR;
> > > > > > DEFINE_SPINLOCK(msg_queue_spinlock);
> > > > > > struct vchiq_state g_state;
> > > > > > -static struct platform_device *bcm2835_camera;
> > > > > > -static struct platform_device *bcm2835_audio;
> > > > > > +static u64 vchiq_device_dmamask = DMA_BIT_MASK(32);
> > > > > The fact that this isn't const and is used by two different
> > > > > platform_device instances is worrying. Either it can be made const, or
> > > > > it's wrong.
> > > ack.
> > >
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +static struct platform_device bcm2835_camera = {
> > > > > > + .name = "bcm2835-camera",
> > > > > > + .id = PLATFORM_DEVID_NONE,
> > > > > > + .dev = {
> > > > > > + .dma_mask = &vchiq_device_dmamask,
> > > > > > + }
> > > > > > +};
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +static struct platform_device bcm2835_audio = {
> > > > > > + .name = "bcm2835_audio",
> > > > > > + .id = PLATFORM_DEVID_NONE,
> > > > > > + .dev = {
> > > > > > + .dma_mask = &vchiq_device_dmamask,
> > > > > > + }
> > > > > > +
> > > > > Extra blank line.
> > > oops, checkpatch.pl didn't catch this :-/
> > >
> > > > > > +};
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +static struct platform_device *vchiq_devices[] __initdata = {
> > > > > Make it const.
> > > > >
> > > > > > + &bcm2835_camera,
> > > > > > + &bcm2835_audio,
> > > > > > +};
> > > > > > struct vchiq_drvdata {
> > > > > > const unsigned int cache_line_size;
> > > > > > @@ -1763,28 +1784,6 @@ static const struct of_device_id vchiq_of_match[] = {
> > > > > > };
> > > > > > MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, vchiq_of_match);
> > > > > > -static struct platform_device *
> > > > > > -vchiq_register_child(struct platform_device *pdev, const char *name)
> > > > > > -{
> > > > > > - struct platform_device_info pdevinfo;
> > > > > > - struct platform_device *child;
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > - memset(&pdevinfo, 0, sizeof(pdevinfo));
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > - pdevinfo.parent = &pdev->dev;
> > > > > > - pdevinfo.name = name;
> > > > > > - pdevinfo.id = PLATFORM_DEVID_NONE;
> > > > > > - pdevinfo.dma_mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(32);
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > - child = platform_device_register_full(&pdevinfo);
> > > > > > - if (IS_ERR(child)) {
> > > > > > - dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "%s not registered\n", name);
> > > > > > - child = NULL;
> > > > > > - }
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > - return child;
> > > > > > -}
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > static int vchiq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > > > > {
> > > > > > struct device_node *fw_node;
> > > > > > @@ -1832,8 +1831,11 @@ static int vchiq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > > > > goto error_exit;
> > > > > > }
> > > > > > - bcm2835_camera = vchiq_register_child(pdev, "bcm2835-camera");
> > > > > > - bcm2835_audio = vchiq_register_child(pdev, "bcm2835_audio");
> > > > > > + err = platform_add_devices(vchiq_devices, ARRAY_SIZE(vchiq_devices));
> > > > > > + if (err) {
> > > > > > + dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "Failed to add vchiq child devices");
> > > > > > + goto error_exit;
> > > > > > + }
> > > > > If you unbind and rebind this driver, the platform_device instances
> > > > > defined as global variables will be reused, and I'm pretty sure that
> > > > > will cause issues, for instance with the kobj->state_initialized check
> > > > > in kobject_init() (called from device_initialize(), itself called from
> > > > > platform_device_register(), from platform_add_devices()). I'm not sure
> > > > > static instances of platform_device are a very good idea in general.
> > > > static instances of any device are a horrible idea, but it seems that
> > > > many drivers do this and abuse platform devices this way :(
> > > It seems I have been a victim of the abuse usage while looking for
> > > platform_device references in the codebase. I'm working on a new
> > > approach for this.
> > >
> > > Currently (as per the linux-next branch), the vchiq driver will happily
> > > carry on if any of the child platform device registration fails. That
> > > means if bcm2835-audio fails to register, bcm2835-camera will still
> > > kept registered I suppose.
> > >
> > > However with usage of platform_add_devices() in this patch, I introduced
> > > a functionality change (I'm realizing this now) - any failure of child
> > > platform device registeration will -unregister- all the other platform
> > > devices i.e. if bcm2835-audio fails, bcm2835-camera will also get
> > > unregistered.
> > >
> > > Should I be working towards the status-quo behavior ? Or it's sane to
> > > unregistered other platform devices if one of the fails like
> > > platform_add_devices() does ? (This affects my new approach as well,
> > > hence the question)
> > If it doesn't cause too much extra complexity, it would be nice to skip
> > devices that can't be registered successfully, and still support the
> > other ones. I don't expect registration failures to be a occuring
> > normally, so if this causes too much completely, I think it would still
> > be fine to fail more harshly.
> >
> > > > Ideally this should be done properly, with the correct devices created
> > > > automatically based on the device tree structure, NOT hard-coded into a
> > > > .c file like this.
> > > >
> > > > So I too really do not like this change, why are these not being created
> > > > by the firware layer automatically?
> > > Not sure if this is a helpful comment, but as far I know, there can be
> > > vchiq child platform devices which probably don't have a Device tree
> > > entry. like the bcm2835-isp [1] I posted earlier.
> > >
> > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20221121214722.22563-1-umang.jain@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > Those devices are implemented and exposed by the firmware running on the
> > VC4. The device tree describes the VC4 itself with the resources
> > required to communicate with it through a mailbox interface. I was going
> > to say that the platform devices are then created based on what the
> > firmware exposes, but that's not right, they're indeed hardcoded in the
> > vchiq driver. Adding corresponding DT nodes (as children of the vchiq DT
> > node) could make sense. Dave, do you have any opinion on this ?
>
> i vaguely remember the discussion how to represent audio and camera
> interface in the device tree. Representing as child nodes of the VC4 has
> been rejected on the device tree mailing some years ago, because this
> doesn't represent the physical (hardware) wiring. It's still possible to
> access e.g. the camera interface from the ARM.
>
> The whole approach with using a separate binding for all the firmware stuff
> lead to a lot of trouble on the Raspberry Pi platform (ugly dependencies
> between firmware, DT and kernel). So i would like to avoid this here. In
> case the current implementation is a no go, how about letting the ARM core
> discover the available interfaces e.g. via mailbox interface?
>
> For more inspiration take a look at this old thread [1]
Yes, that's the proper way to do this please! This should be a bus and
dynamically add the devices when found, it is NOT a platform device
anymore.
thanks,
greg k-h
