Hi Greg, Rob,
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 09:41:19 +0200
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 03:34:49PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 03:23:55PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 04:39:15PM +0100, Herve Codina wrote:
> > > > The commit 407d1a51921e ("PCI: Create device tree node for bridge")
> > > > creates of_node for PCI devices.
> > > >
> > > > During the insertion handling of these new DT nodes done by of_platform,
> > > > new devices (struct device) are created. For each PCI devices a struct
> > > > device is already present (created and handled by the PCI core).
> > > > Having a second struct device to represent the exact same PCI device is
> > > > not correct.
> > > >
> > > > On the of_node creation:
> > > > - tell the of_platform that there is no need to create a device for this
> > > > node (OF_POPULATED flag),
> > > > - link this newly created of_node to the already present device,
> > > > - tell fwnode that the device attached to this of_node is ready using
> > > > fwnode_dev_initialized().
> > > >
> > > > With this fix, the of_node are available in the sysfs device tree:
> > > > /sys/devices/platform/soc/d0070000.pcie/
> > > > + of_node -> .../devicetree/base/soc/pcie@d0070000
> > > > + pci0000:00
> > > > + 0000:00:00.0
> > > > + of_node -> .../devicetree/base/soc/pcie@d0070000/pci@0,0
> > > > + 0000:01:00.0
> > > > + of_node -> .../devicetree/base/soc/pcie@d0070000/pci@0,0/dev@0,0
> > > >
> > > > On the of_node removal, revert the operations.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: 407d1a51921e ("PCI: Create device tree node for bridge")
> > > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > Signed-off-by: Herve Codina <herve.codina@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > I need an ack from the maintainer here before I can take this.
> >
> > Correct me if I'm wrong, but having the of_node sysfs link populated or
> > changed after device_add is a race we lost. Userspace is notified about
> > the new device and then some time later the symlink shows up.
>
> Ah, yes, I missed that, good catch, this will not work.
>
> > However, it so far is not appearing that there's an easy way to
> > reshuffle order of things to fix this.
> >
> > Maybe the short term (and stable) answer just don't create any of_node
> > symlinks on these dynamically created nodes.
>
> That would work, but does userspace really need to know this
> information?
>
I don't think that the user space really need this information.
I agree, it should work.
Let me rework my series in that sense and perform some tests before
sending a new iteration removing the of_node sysfs link creation.
Best regards,
Hervé
