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=-6.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no 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 C8031C388F9 for ; Sat, 24 Oct 2020 00:40:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37BD5241A3 for ; Sat, 24 Oct 2020 00:40:48 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.b="uzQOPDdJ" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756851AbgJXAko (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Oct 2020 20:40:44 -0400 Received: from perceval.ideasonboard.com ([213.167.242.64]:41818 "EHLO perceval.ideasonboard.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756845AbgJXAko (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Oct 2020 20:40:44 -0400 Received: from pendragon.ideasonboard.com (62-78-145-57.bb.dnainternet.fi [62.78.145.57]) by perceval.ideasonboard.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 899A9B26; Sat, 24 Oct 2020 02:40:41 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ideasonboard.com; s=mail; t=1603500041; bh=VS+PHa1Z7q4KnYHiQFEbziY0WQ7duYT8JngUrBH/cuk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=uzQOPDdJ+M/aKp3bkYQe6/CAimSQuD3zp+YaCod/QHXMfjjpVPLz49BVDdHlUAtEW w7/NfpctFSrSj7hoEBe00uG6OOHOS8Ctm40KLwyeq759KKP5CYKFx+wf6Wu8i+ctF4 fk2vsYOqQJPBdYhQAIgunrjR5q5bmLCb/Vk6KmYU= Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2020 03:39:55 +0300 From: Laurent Pinchart To: Sakari Ailus Cc: Dan Scally , Andy Shevchenko , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, linux.walleij@linaro.org, prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com, heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com, laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com, kieran.bingham+renesas@ideasonboard.com, jacopo+renesas@jmondi.org, robh@kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk, sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, pmladek@suse.com, mchehab@kernel.org, tian.shu.qiu@intel.com, bingbu.cao@intel.com, yong.zhi@intel.com, rafael@kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, kitakar@gmail.com, dan.carpenter@oracle.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 7/9] ipu3-cio2: Check if pci_dev->dev's fwnode is a software_node in cio2_parse_firmware() and set FWNODE_GRAPH_DEVICE_DISABLED if so Message-ID: <20201024003955.GS5979@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> References: <20201019225903.14276-1-djrscally@gmail.com> <20201019225903.14276-8-djrscally@gmail.com> <20201020091958.GC4077@smile.fi.intel.com> <20201020120615.GV13341@paasikivi.fi.intel.com> <32bbb4db-17d7-b9d1-950f-8f29d67539c3@gmail.com> <20201020224910.GB2703@paasikivi.fi.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20201020224910.GB2703@paasikivi.fi.intel.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-media@vger.kernel.org Hi Sakari On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 01:49:10AM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 08:56:07PM +0100, Dan Scally wrote: > > On 20/10/2020 13:06, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 12:19:58PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 11:59:01PM +0100, Daniel Scally wrote: > > >>> fwnode_graph_get_endpoint_by_id() will optionally parse enabled devices > > >>> only; that status being determined through the .device_is_available() op > > >>> of the device's fwnode. As software_nodes don't have that operation and > > >>> adding it is meaningless, we instead need to check if the device's fwnode > > >>> is a software_node and if so pass the appropriate flag to disable that > > >>> check > > >> Period. > > >> > > >> I'm wondering if actually this can be hidden in fwnode_graph_get_endpoint_by_id(). > > > The device availability test is actually there for a reason. Some firmware > > > implementations put all the potential devices in the tables and only one > > > (of some) of them are available. > > > > > > Could this be implemented so that if the node is a software node, then get > > > its parent and then see if that is available? > > > > > > I guess that could be implemented in software node ops. Any opinions? > > Actually when considering the cio2 device, it seems that > > set_secondary_fwnode() actually overwrites the _primary_, given > > fwnode_is_primary(dev->fwnode) returns false. So in at least some cases, > > this wouldn't work. > > Ouch. I wonder when this happens --- have you checked what's the primary > there? I guess it might be if it's a PCI device without the corresponding > ACPI device node? > > I remember you had an is_available implementation that just returned true > for software nodes in an early version of the set? I think it would still > be a lesser bad in this case. How about the following ? diff --git a/drivers/base/property.c b/drivers/base/property.c index 81bd01ed4042..ea44ba846299 100644 --- a/drivers/base/property.c +++ b/drivers/base/property.c @@ -706,9 +706,14 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fwnode_handle_put); /** * fwnode_device_is_available - check if a device is available for use * @fwnode: Pointer to the fwnode of the device. + * + * For fwnode node types that don't implement the .device_is_available() + * operation, such as software nodes, this function returns true. */ bool fwnode_device_is_available(const struct fwnode_handle *fwnode) { + if (!fwnode_has_op(fwnode, device_is_available)) + return true; return fwnode_call_bool_op(fwnode, device_is_available); } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fwnode_device_is_available); -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart