On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 10:02:00AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> +Saravana
>
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 4:35 AM Luca Ceresoli <luca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Rob,
> >
> > On 16/12/21 10:08, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
> > > Hi Rob,
> > >
> > > thanks for the quick feedback!
> > >
> > > On 14/12/21 23:42, Rob Herring wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 4:15 PM Luca Ceresoli <luca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> If a devm_phy_get() calls fails with phy_count==N (N > 0), then N links
> > >>> have already been added by device_link_add() and won't be deleted by
> > >>> device_link_del() because the code calls 'return' and not 'goto err_link'.
> > >>>
> > >>> Fix in a very simple way by doing all the devm_phy_get() calls before all
> > >>> the device_link_add() calls.
> > >>>
> > >>> Fixes: 7a4db656a635 ("PCI: dra7xx: Create functional dependency between PCIe and PHY")
> > >>> Signed-off-by: Luca Ceresoli <luca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>> ---
> > >>> drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-dra7xx.c | 2 ++
> > >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > >>>
> > >>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-dra7xx.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-dra7xx.c
> > >>> index f7f1490e7beb..2ccc53869e13 100644
> > >>> --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-dra7xx.c
> > >>> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-dra7xx.c
> > >>> @@ -757,7 +757,9 @@ static int dra7xx_pcie_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > >>> phy[i] = devm_phy_get(dev, name);
> > >>> if (IS_ERR(phy[i]))
> > >>> return PTR_ERR(phy[i]);
> > >>> + }
> > >>>
> > >>> + for (i = 0; i < phy_count; i++) {
> > >>> link[i] = device_link_add(dev, &phy[i]->dev, DL_FLAG_STATELESS);
> > >>
> > >> I think this should happen automatically now with fw_devlink being
> > >> enabled by default. Can you try?
> > >
> > > Do you mean removal should be done automatically? I think they are not
> > > due to the DL_FLAG_STATELESS flag.
> >
> > I would love to have feedback because, as said, I think my patch is
> > correct, but if I'm wrong (which might well be) I have to drop patch 1
> > and rewrite patch 2 in a slightly more complex form.
>
> I mean that why do you need explicit dependency tracking here when
> dependencies on a PHY should happen automatically now. IOW, what is
> special about this driver and dependency?
Any update on this patch ? I think patch 2 can be merged, please
let me know if this one can be dropped.
Thanks,
Lorenzo
