On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 09:31:11AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>
>
> On 5/13/2020 9:27 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 08:08:07AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 5/13/2020 5:26 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >>> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 11:00:15AM -0400, Al Cooper wrote:
> >>>> Some BRCMSTB USB chips have an XHCI, EHCI and OHCI controller
> >>>> on the same port where XHCI handles 3.0 devices, EHCI handles 2.0
> >>>> devices and OHCI handles <2.0 devices. Currently the Makefile
> >>>> has XHCI linking at the bottom which will result in the XHIC driver
> >>>> initalizing after the EHCI and OHCI drivers and any installed 3.0
> >>>> device will be seen as a 2.0 device. Moving the XHCI linking
> >>>> above the EHCI and OHCI linking fixes the issue.
> >>>
> >>> What happens if all of these are modules and they are loaded in a
> >>> different order? This makefile change will not help with that, you need
> >>> to have logic in the code in order to properly coordinate this type of
> >>> mess, sorry.
> >>
> >> I believe we should be using module soft dependencies to instruct the
> >> module loaders to load the modules in the correct order, so something
> >> like this would do (not tested) for xhci-plat-hcd.c:
> >>
> >> MODULE_SOFTDEP("post: ehci-hcd ohci-hcd");
> >>
> >> and I am not sure whether we need to add the opposite for ehci-hcd and
> >> ohci-hcd:
> >>
> >> MODULE_SOFTDEP("pre: xhci-plat-hcd");
> >
> > That's a nice start, but what happens if that isn't honored? This
> > really needs to work properly for any order as you never can guarantee
> > module/driver loading order in a system of modules.
>
> I also suggested that device links may help, though I am not sure. What
> do you suggest to be done?
No idea. device links will help if you defer the probe properly until
you see the proper drivers binding correctly.
good luck!
greg k-h
