Re: [PATCH v2 00/11] fw_devlink improvements

From: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>
To: Maxim Kiselev <bigunclemax@gmail.com>
Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
	Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org>,
	abel.vesa@linaro.org, alexander.stein@ew.tq-group.com,
	andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com, brgl@bgdev.pl,
	colin.foster@in-advantage.com, cristian.marussi@arm.com,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, dianders@chromium.org,
	djrscally@gmail.com, dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org,
	festevam@gmail.com, fido_max@inbox.ru, frowand.list@gmail.com,
	geert+renesas@glider.be, geert@linux-m68k.org,
	gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com,
	jpb@kernel.org, jstultz@google.com, kernel-team@android.com,
	kernel@pengutronix.de, lenb@kernel.org, linus.walleij@linaro.org,
	linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-imx@nxp.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org,
	linux@roeck-us.net, lkft@linaro.org, luca.weiss@fairphone.com,
	magnus.damm@gmail.com, martin.kepplinger@puri.sm, maz@kernel.org,
	miquel.raynal@bootlin.com, rafael@kernel.org, robh+dt@kernel.org,
	s.hauer@pengutronix.de, sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com,
	shawnguo@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, tony@atomide.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/11] fw_devlink improvements
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2023 22:07:06 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGETcx_UvW819m1Y-QU_ySB1nG_RegKKT06=YjkK=C_qjbAySw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALHCpMijXAgQx2qq8g8zdq=6AHwP+g5WVBjjry=v+dKEq9KDLw@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 9:36 AM Maxim Kiselev <bigunclemax@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Saravana,
>
> > Can you try the patch at the end of this email under these
> > configurations and tell me which ones fail vs pass? I don't need logs
>
> I did these tests and here is the results:

Did you hand edit the In-Reply-To: in the header? Because in the
thread you are reply to the wrong email, but the context in your email
seems to be from the right email.

For example, see how your reply isn't under the email you are replying
to in this thread overview:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230127001141.407071-1-saravanak@google.com/#r

> 1. On top of this series - Not works
> 2. Without this series    - Works
> 3. On top of the series with the fwnode_dev_initialized() deleted - Not works
> 4. Without this series, with the fwnode_dev_initialized() deleted  - Works
>
> So your nvmem/core.c patch helps only when it is applied without the series.
> But despite the fact that this helps to avoid getting stuck at probing
> my ethernet device, there is still regression.
>
> When the ethernet module is loaded it takes a lot of time to drop dependency
> from the nvmem-cell with mac address.
>
> Please look at the kernel logs below.

The kernel logs below really aren't that useful for me in their
current state. See more below.

---8<---- <snip> --->8----

> P.S. Your nvmem patch definitely helps to avoid a device probe stuck
> but look like it is not best way to solve a problem which we discussed
> in the MTD thread.
>
> P.P.S. Also I don't know why your nvmem-cell patch doesn't help when it was
> applied on top of this series. Maybe I missed something.

Yeah, I'm not too sure if the test was done correctly. You also didn't
answer my question about the dts from my earlier email.
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAGETcx8FpmbaRm2CCwqt3BRBpgbogwP5gNB+iA5OEtuxWVTNLA@mail.gmail.com/#t

So, can you please retest config 1 with all pr_debug and dev_dbg in
drivers/core/base.c changed to the _info variants? And then share the
kernel log from the beginning of boot? Maybe attach it to the email so
it doesn't get word wrapped by your email client. And please point me
to the .dts that corresponds to your board. Without that, I can't
debug much.

Thanks,
Saravana