[lkml]   [2016]   [Sep]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC/RFT][PATCH v3 0/5] Functional dependencies between devices
Hi Rafael,

On 2016-09-16 00:03, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
> On Thursday, September 08, 2016 11:25:44 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> Hi Everyone,
>> This is a refresh of the functional dependencies series that I posted last
>> year and which has picked up by Marek quite recently. For reference, appended
>> is my introductory message sent previously (which may be slightly outdated now).
>> As last time, the first patch rearranges the code around __device_release_driver()
>> a bit to prepare it for the next one (it actually hasn't changed AFAICS).
>> The second patch introduces the actual device links mechanics, but without
>> system suspend/resume and runtime PM support which are added by the subsequent
>> patches.
>> Some bugs found by Marek during his work on these patches should be fixed
>> here. In particular, the endless recursion in device_reorder_to_tail()
>> which simply was broken before.
>> There are two additional patches to address the issue with runtime PM support
>> that occured when runtime PM was disabled for some suppliers due to a PM
>> sleep transition in progress. Those patches simply make runtime PM helpers
>> return 0 in that case which may be controversial, so please let me know if
>> there are concerns about those.
>> The way device_link_add() works is a bit different, as it takes an additional
>> status argument now. That makes it possible to create a link in any state,
>> with extra care of course, and should address the problem pointed to by Lukas
>> during the previous discussion.
>> Also some comments from Tomeu have been addressed.
> An update here.
> The first patch hasn't changed, so I'm resending it.
> The majority of changes in the other patches are in order to address Lukas'
> comments.
> First off, I added a DEVICE_LINK_STATELESS flag that will prevent the driver
> core from trying to maintain device links having it set.
> Also, the DEVICE_LINK_PERSISTENT flag was dropped (as link "persistence" is the
> default behavior now) and there's a new one, DEVICE_LINK_AUTOREMOVE, that will
> cause the driver core to remove the link on the consumer driver unbind.
> Moreover, the code checks attempts to create a link between a parent and a child
> device now and actively prevents that from happening.
> The changelog of the second patch has been updated as requested by Ulf.
> The third patch was updated to fix a bug related to the (previously missing)
> clearing of power.direct_complete for supplier devices having consumers that
> don't use direct_complete.
> The next two (runtime PM) patches turned out to be unnecessary, so I've dropped
> them.
> The runtime PM patch [4/5] was reorganized somewhat to reduce the indentation
> level in there, but the code flow introduced by it is essentially the same
> and the last patch was simply rebased on top of the new series.
> If this version still works for Marek, I'll probably drop the RFC tag from it
> in the next iteration.

Sadly, this version doesn't work. I get following kernel bug:

[ 2.357622] BUG: spinlock bad magic on CPU#0, swapper/0/1
[ 2.362361] lock: 0xeea2e294, .magic: ffffffff, .owner: /0,
.owner_cpu: -1
[ 2.369389] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted
4.8.0-rc6-00019-gd66d0028dd3c-dirty #651
[ 2.377954] Hardware name: SAMSUNG EXYNOS (Flattened Device Tree)
[ 2.384053] [<c010d7f0>] (unwind_backtrace) from [<c010a4b4>]
[ 2.391766] [<c010a4b4>] (show_stack) from [<c032220c>]
[ 2.398970] [<c032220c>] (dump_stack) from [<c0158e8c>]
[ 2.406870] [<c0158e8c>] (do_raw_spin_lock) from [<c03e8d84>]
[ 2.415634] [<c03e8d84>] (device_links_no_driver) from [<c03ec32c>]
[ 2.424744] [<c03ec32c>] (driver_probe_device) from [<c03ec5f4>]
[ 2.433165] [<c03ec5f4>] (__driver_attach) from [<c03eaa90>]
[ 2.441323] [<c03eaa90>] (bus_for_each_dev) from [<c03eba6c>]
[ 2.449481] [<c03eba6c>] (bus_add_driver) from [<c03ece54>]
[ 2.457469] [<c03ece54>] (driver_register) from [<c010178c>]
[ 2.465632] [<c010178c>] (do_one_initcall) from [<c0b00d84>]
[ 2.474313] [<c0b00d84>] (kernel_init_freeable) from [<c0704194>]
[ 2.482470] [<c0704194>] (kernel_init) from [<c01079b8>]

I'm checking what's wrong there.

Best regards
Marek Szyprowski, PhD
Samsung R&D Institute Poland

 \ /
  Last update: 2016-09-17 09:59    [W:1.458 / U:0.004 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site