From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-18.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6107BC433E0 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 02:41:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20C4664DA8 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 02:41:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229903AbhBQClU (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Feb 2021 21:41:20 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:38728 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229480AbhBQClR (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Feb 2021 21:41:17 -0500 Received: from mail-yb1-xb32.google.com (mail-yb1-xb32.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b32]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 408E4C061574 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 18:40:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-yb1-xb32.google.com with SMTP id 133so12395900ybd.5 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 18:40:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=VUcVGYY2T8COLXWf6KYbS5KlqkoxN41Uds/NSZJ0Uns=; b=aZqHkbAUjarZjank3nasl1AXd8paRJD0j0nREMCpvoYnZrX3bvJc2uCN0WmJ73p7Ju cNNIXAnVm/Hfy/VB+RtCCkmgAgM+EdcuH3VBnMqNRexb/vYTo4K7IP7so/9u6ZlxZm8k Nh2c++c2n9grCDBKbN8wFL5hdJO963PIohkeFPcTEQl8bWPk9nEu/uaMgIZgFVL0351k U7jdjRb0xwH4UCKhPmyPxR2u7OpRaK9t1IM/0MxayhnVvcMkPHcaQj/i+4Fk4UAMKjbW kx4XvWp2mPOkgm8Cbi7gZeWiynGng0bdEdGQflnmqwEkVvB6G77LgWBkNw/dVoj9ekAJ gFKQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=VUcVGYY2T8COLXWf6KYbS5KlqkoxN41Uds/NSZJ0Uns=; b=gqIX5oIHUro1oji5INFvsRSU+oOYMtXxLx5z88LrAz7YqP7s8J1Fx5dgOZaPKnsEDe oB+EQCP8vvyk7vfDPrU2Me0/kdLy/9MWTuTMTxLVS/xbKFzOz8NyfYCFa4glMfzOq2I4 TyKLVu7HkjaFeodF4v7U9K97P6BMSwpZoRfrtZfb0/Uo8lX0KviFraeHc1Tp7BGv3TQV nFd6q0t1Xp9K1naR5AsJTvVuVkLKKvCYfad20FLPU/iMX7RnCNSgSQeFPc95GVnRvElH 4UeQ5j8NGtR+GTI//UTkE5EKZUfRAv4q3wuic73kJ5yPpjrJ34PkmteYupsJELYdamZi o6IQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530tooUvYb0pB0azL2hL10B1ki75SpgKp9tnkVkS2xQ9mgxkjSy3 1PaAJVIQ93OewfuP8IMFaC8FAIXxj+fqLMPQPAYaQA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzc5IUD8AQDnq5SwSXZGmfoTiq1FEx8gK8eGZizJI6DxmQEyjwcuq7B8/Nqui9TJ6xeXrMXjmukNp8Z6fxOrFY= X-Received: by 2002:a25:b74c:: with SMTP id e12mr37054200ybm.20.1613529631400; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 18:40:31 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201218031703.3053753-1-saravanak@google.com> <20201218031703.3053753-6-saravanak@google.com> <20210210055430.GA73123@roeck-us.net> <33f643b9-9f6d-e59a-64e7-2d2b7d3e71a4@roeck-us.net> In-Reply-To: From: Saravana Kannan Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 18:39:55 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 5/5] driver core: Set fw_devlink=on by default To: Guenter Roeck Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Android Kernel Team , LKML , Jisheng Zhang , Kevin Hilman , John Stultz , Nicolas Saenz Julienne , Marc Zyngier Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 1:21 PM Guenter Roeck wrote: > > On 2/10/21 12:52 PM, Saravana Kannan wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 7:10 AM Guenter Roeck wrote: > >> > >> On 2/10/21 12:20 AM, Saravana Kannan wrote: > >>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 9:54 PM Guenter Roeck wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 07:17:03PM -0800, Saravana Kannan wrote: > >>>>> Cyclic dependencies in some firmware was one of the last remaining > >>>>> reasons fw_devlink=on couldn't be set by default. Now that cyclic > >>>>> dependencies don't block probing, set fw_devlink=on by default. > >>>>> > >>>>> Setting fw_devlink=on by default brings a bunch of benefits (currently, > >>>>> only for systems with device tree firmware): > >>>>> * Significantly cuts down deferred probes. > >>>>> * Device probe is effectively attempted in graph order. > >>>>> * Makes it much easier to load drivers as modules without having to > >>>>> worry about functional dependencies between modules (depmod is still > >>>>> needed for symbol dependencies). > >>>>> > >>>>> If this patch prevents some devices from probing, it's very likely due > >>>>> to the system having one or more device drivers that "probe"/set up a > >>>>> device (DT node with compatible property) without creating a struct > >>>>> device for it. If we hit such cases, the device drivers need to be > >>>>> fixed so that they populate struct devices and probe them like normal > >>>>> device drivers so that the driver core is aware of the devices and their > >>>>> status. See [1] for an example of such a case. > >>>>> > >>>>> [1] - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAGETcx9PiX==mLxB9PO8Myyk6u2vhPVwTMsA5NkD-ywH5xhusw@mail.gmail.com/ > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan > >>>> > >>>> This patch breaks nios2 boot tests in qemu. The system gets stuck when > >>>> trying to reboot. Reverting this patch fixes the problem. Bisect log > >>>> is attached. > >>> > >>> Thanks for the report Guenter. Can you please try this series? > >>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210205222644.2357303-1-saravanak@google.com/ > >>> > >> > >> Not this week. I have lots of reviews to complete before the end of the week, > >> with the 5.12 commit window coming up. > > > > Ok. By next week, all the fixes should be in linux-next too. So it > > should be easier if you choose to test. > > > >> Given the number of problems observed, I personally think that it is way > >> too early for this patch. We'll have no end of problems if it is applied > >> to the upstream kernel in the next commit window. Of course, that is just > >> my personal opinion. > > > > You had said "with 115 of 430 boot tests failing in -next" earlier. > > Just to be sure I understand it right, you are not saying this patch > > caused them all right? You are just saying that 115 general boot > > failures that might mask fw_devlink issues in some of them, right? > > > > Correct. Is it right to assume [1] fixed all known boot issues due to fw_devlink=on? [1] - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210215224258.1231449-1-saravanak@google.com/ -Saravana