On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 9:22 AM Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 3/3/23 03:57, Stefan Wahren wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Am 02.03.23 um 18:51 schrieb Florian Fainelli: > >> > >> > >> On 3/2/2023 9:20 AM, Saravana Kannan wrote: > >>> On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 9:01 AM Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@xxxxxxxx> > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Saravana, > >>>> > >>>> Am 02.03.23 um 03:35 schrieb Saravana Kannan: > >>>>> This allow fw_devlink to do dependency tracking for serdev devices. > >>>>> > >>>>> Reported-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx> > >>>>> Link: > >>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/03b70a8a-0591-f28b-a567-9d2f736f17e5@xxxxxxxxx/ > >>>>> Cc: Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@xxxxxxxx> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>>> > >>>> since this fixes an issue on Raspberry Pi 4, shouldn't this be > >>>> mentioned > >>>> in the commit message and providing a Fixes tag? > >>> > >>> So RPi 4 was never creating a device links between serdev devices and > >>> their consumers. The error message was just a new one I added and we > >>> are noticing and catching the fact that serdev wasn't setting fwnode > >>> for a device. > >>> > >>> I'm also not sure if I can say this commit "Fixes" an issue in serdev > >>> core because when serdev core was written, fw_devlink wasn't a thing. > >>> Once I add Fixes, people will start pulling this into stable > >>> branches/other trees where I don't think this should be pulled into > >>> older stable branches. > >> > >> That is kind of the point of Fixes: tag, is not it? It is appropriate > >> to list a commit that is not specific to serdev, but maybe a > >> particular point into the fw_devlink history. Given this did not > >> appear to have a functional impact, we could go without one. > > > > i was under the impression that this issue breaks at least Bluetooth on > > Raspberry Pi 4 because the driver is never probed. I cannot see the > > success output in Florian's trace. Something like this: > > > > [ 7.124879] hci_uart_bcm serial0-0: supply vbat not found, using > > dummy regulator > > [ 7.131743] hci_uart_bcm serial0-0: supply vddio not found, using > > dummy regulator > > ... > > [ 7.517249] Bluetooth: hci0: BCM: chip id 107 > > [ 7.517499] Bluetooth: hci0: BCM: features 0x2f > > [ 7.519757] Bluetooth: hci0: BCM4345C0 > > [ 7.519768] Bluetooth: hci0: BCM4345C0 (003.001.025) build 0000 > > [ 7.539495] Bluetooth: hci0: BCM4345C0 'brcm/BCM4345C0.hcd' Patch > > ... > > [ 8.348831] Bluetooth: hci0: BCM43455 37.4MHz Raspberry Pi 3+ > > [ 8.348845] Bluetooth: hci0: BCM4345C0 (003.001.025) build 0342 > > > > I just want to make sure that 6.2 doesn't have a regression. > > My configuration uses hci_uart as a module, and it would always load > fine, but I suppose I can make sure that even built-in this works > properly. Give me a day or two to test that. Thanks Stefan and Florian! I'll wait to see the results. But based on my mental model of fw_devlink I don't expect BT to be broken without this patch. If a device doesn't have fwnode set, it's effectively invisible to fw_devlink. That could only affect consumers of the device and not the device itself. -Saravana
