On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 6:15 PM Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 7:03 AM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 1:02 AM Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 7:03 AM Jon Hunter <jonathanh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 14/01/2021 16:56, Jon Hunter wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 14/01/2021 16:47, Saravana Kannan wrote: > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > >>> Yes this is the warning shown here [0] and this is coming from > > > > >>> the 'Generic PHY stmmac-0:00' device. > > > > >> > > > > >> Can you print the supplier and consumer device when this warning is > > > > >> happening and let me know? That'd help too. I'm guessing the phy is > > > > >> the consumer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry I should have included that. I added a print to dump this on > > > > > another build but failed to include here. > > > > > > > > > > WARNING KERN Generic PHY stmmac-0:00: supplier 2200000.gpio (status 1) > > > > > > > > > > The status is the link->status and looks like the supplier is the > > > > > gpio controller. I have verified that the gpio controller is probed > > > > > before this successfully. > > > > > > > > > >> So the warning itself isn't a problem -- it's not breaking anything or > > > > >> leaking memory or anything like that. But the device link is jumping > > > > >> states in an incorrect manner. With enough context of this code (why > > > > >> the device_bind_driver() is being called directly instead of going > > > > >> through the normal probe path), it should be easy to fix (I'll just > > > > >> need to fix up the device link state). > > > > > > > > > > Correct, the board seems to boot fine, we just get this warning. > > > > > > > > > > > > Have you had chance to look at this further? > > > > > > Hi Jon, > > > > > > I finally got around to looking into this. Here's the email[1] that > > > describes why it's done this way. > > > > > > [1] - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YCRjmpKjK0pxKTCP@xxxxxxx/ > > > > > > > > > > > The following does appear to avoid the warning, but I am not sure if > > > > this is the correct thing to do ... > > > > > > > > index 9179825ff646..095aba84f7c2 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/base/dd.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/base/dd.c > > > > @@ -456,6 +456,10 @@ int device_bind_driver(struct device *dev) > > > > { > > > > int ret; > > > > > > > > + ret = device_links_check_suppliers(dev); > > > > + if (ret) > > > > + return ret; > > > > + > > > > ret = driver_sysfs_add(dev); > > > > if (!ret) > > > > driver_bound(dev); > > > > > > So digging deeper into the usage of device_bind_driver and looking at > > > [1], it doesn't look like returning an error here is a good option. > > > When device_bind_driver() is called, the driver's probe function isn't > > > even called. So, there's no way for the driver to even defer probing > > > based on any of the suppliers. So, we have a couple of options: > > > > > > 1. Delete all the links to suppliers that haven't bound. > > > > Or maybe convert them to stateless links? Would that be doable at all? > > Yeah, I think it should be doable. > > > > > > We'll still leave the links to active suppliers alone in case it helps with > > > suspend/resume correctness. > > > 2. Fix the warning to not warn on suppliers that haven't probed if the > > > device's driver has no probe function. But this will also need fixing > > > up the cleanup part when device_release_driver() is called. Also, I'm > > > not sure if device_bind_driver() is ever called when the driver > > > actually has a probe() function. > > > > > > Rafael, > > > > > > Option 1 above is pretty straightforward. > > > > I would prefer this -> > > Ok > > > > > > Option 2 would look something like what's at the end of this email + > > > caveat about whether the probe check is sufficient. > > > > -> because "fix the warning" really means that we haven't got the > > device link state machine right and getting it right may imply a major > > redesign. > > > > Overall, I'd prefer to take a step back and allow things to stabilize > > for a while to let people catch up with this. > > Are you referring to if/when we implement Option 2? Or do you want to > step back for a while even before implementing Option 1? I would do option 1 and if then see what happens and maybe go back from there if need be until getting a reasonably stable situation (that is all of the systems that used to work before still work at least).
