Messages in this thread | | | From | Saravana Kannan <> | Date | Tue, 16 Feb 2021 18:39:55 -0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 5/5] driver core: Set fw_devlink=on by default |
| |
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 1:21 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote: > > On 2/10/21 12:52 PM, Saravana Kannan wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 7:10 AM Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote: > >> > >> On 2/10/21 12:20 AM, Saravana Kannan wrote: > >>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 9:54 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> 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 <saravanak@google.com> > >>>> > >>>> 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
| |