Re: [PATCH 3/3] amba: Properly handle device probe without IRQ domain

[Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>]

On 2021/8/26 12:45, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 7:45 PM Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 2021/8/25 16:04, Saravana Kannan wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 9:05 PM Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2021/8/25 4:08, Saravana Kannan wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 1:05 PM Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>>>> +Saravana
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Saravana mentioned to me there may be some issues with this one...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 2:43 AM Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> of_amba_device_create() uses irq_of_parse_and_map() to translate
>>>>>>> a DT interrupt specification into a Linux virtual interrupt number.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But it doesn't properly handle the case where the interrupt controller
>>>>>>> is not yet available, eg, when pl011 interrupt is connected to MBIGEN
>>>>>>> interrupt controller, because the mbigen initialization is too late,
>>>>>>> which will lead to no IRQ due to no IRQ domain found, log is shown below,
>>>>>>>      "irq: no irq domain found for uart0 !"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> use of_irq_get() to return -EPROBE_DEFER as above, and in the function
>>>>>>> amba_device_try_add()/amba_device_add(), it will properly handle in such
>>>>>>> case, also return 0 in other fail cases to be consistent as before.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cc: Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
>>>>>>> Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>
>>>>>>> Cc: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> Reported-by: Ruizhe Lin <linruizhe@huawei.com>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
>>>>>>> ---
...
>>>>> Similar to other resources the AMBA bus "gets" for the device, I think
>>>>> this should be moved into amba_probe() and not here. There's no reason
>>>>> to delay the addition of the device (and loading its module) because
>>>>> the IRQ isn't ready yet.
>>>> The following code in the amba_device_try_add() will be called, it uses irq[0]
>>>> and irq[1], so I put of_amba_device_decode_irq() into amba_device_try_add().
>>>>
>>>> 470         if (dev->irq[0])
>>>> 471                 ret = device_create_file(&dev->dev, &dev_attr_irq0);
>>>> 472         if (ret == 0 && dev->irq[1])
>>>> 473                 ret = device_create_file(&dev->dev, &dev_attr_irq1);
>>>> 474         if (ret == 0)
>>>> 475                 return ret;
>>>>
>>>> of_amba_device_decode_irq() in amba_device_try_add() won't lead to issue,
>>>> only delay the device add, right?
>>> But delaying the device add is the issue. For example, adding a device
>>> could trigger the loading of the corresponding module using uevents.
>>> But now this change would delay that step. That can have other
>>> unintended consequences -- slowing down boot, what if the driver was
>>> working fine without the IRQ, etc.
>>>
>>>> If make it into amba_probe(), the above code should be moved too, could we
>>>> make a new patch to move both of them, or don't move them?
>>> I'd say move them both. If Russell hasn't already picked this up, then
>>> I'd say redo your Patch 3/3.
>> I will resend with put it into amba_probe.
>>> Btw, I've been working on [1] cleaning up the one-off deferred probe
>>> solution that we have for amba devices. That causes a bunch of other
>>> headaches. Your patch 3/3 takes us further in the wrong direction by
>>> adding more reasons for delaying the addition of the device.
>> Got it,  and I could resend all combine your patch(due to context conflict
>>
>> when changing same function) if you no object.
> If you want to resolve the conflict with my patch and resend it while
> keeping me as the author, I would definitely appreciate it.
Yes, I will keep it, and rebase my patch based on it.
>
> -Saravana
>>
>>> -Saravana
>>>
>>> [1] - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAGETcx8b228nDUho3cX9AAQ-pXOfZTMv8cj2vhdx9yc_pk8q+A@mail.gmail.com/
>>> .
>>>
> .
>