lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] reset: Exclusive resets must be dedicated to a single hardware block
From
Date
On Mon, 2018-10-08 at 11:59 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Philipp,
>
> On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 5:16 PM Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2018-10-05 at 14:31 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > > > + eq = (args2.np == args.np &&
> > > > > > + args2.args_count == args.args_count &&
> > > > > > + !memcmp(args2.args, args.args,
> > > > > > + args.args_count * sizeof(args.args[0])));
> > > >
> > > > As there's at least one other function in -next that compares of_phandle_args,
> > > > I will add a helper of_phandle_args_eq().
> > > >
> > > > > > + of_node_put(args2.np);
> > > > > > + if (eq)
> > > > >
> > > > > Emitting a loud warning here could be very helpful if it contains
> > > > > both the reset controller node and the reset index, as well as the
> > >
> > > Actually on DT-based systems, the index is a driver-specific
> > > implementation detail, and may differ from the actual reset specifier in DT.
> > > E.g. on R-Car systems, DT uses a human-readable representation matching
> > > the datasheet, while internally, the driver uses a packed representation.
> > > Hence printing the index may confuse the user.
> > >
> > > For lookup-based systems, this is different.
> >
> > Correct. I'm so used to #reset-cells = <1>, it's hard to remember the
> > exceptions. So let's not try to print indices or args.
> >
> > > > > consumer nodes: node and node2.
> > > >
> > > > Indeed, will do, also for lookup resets.
> > > >
> > > > We already have of_print_phandle_args(), but that is a bit inflexible.
> > > > Adding support for "%pOFa" looks like the modern thing to do.
> > >
> > > Scrap that: of_phandle_args is not derived from a device_node, so %pOFa
> > > is not appropriate (and would crash instead of fall back to a pointer before
> > > %pOFa support is implemented). And without more users, it doesn't make much
> > > sense to go for a new type (e.g. "%pOA")...
> > >
> > > Actually, printing the full reset specifier is not needed. A message like
> > >
> > > /soc/pwm@e6e31000 and /soc/pwm@e6e30000 share a reset on
> > > /soc/clock-controller@e6150000
> > >
> > > should give sufficient clue to the user.
> >
> > Yes. You could also pass con_id into __of_reset_is_exclusive and print
> > that. It would be nice to indicate which consumer requested exclusive
> > access.
>
> con_id is used for lookup-based resets only?
>
> But the value passed there is the "id" parameter of
> reset_control_get_exclusive().

Sorry, I did mean the id parameter in the __of_reset_control_get case.

> However, that is not the consumer name,

It is the name of the reset signal from point of view of the consumer.
It specifies, via its position in the reset-names property, which of
potentially multiple reset phandles in the resets property is the one
causing the conflict.

> and usually NULL.

In which case the resets property usually only contains one phandle, so
it is not needed to determine the conflicting reset control.

> I'm afraid the only way to know the consumer is to print a backtrace with
> WARN()?

I'm just suggesting to augment the warning message with the reset id, if
available. For example:

    /soc/pwm@e6e31000 requests exclusive control over reset "pwm"
shared with /soc/pwm@e6e30000 on /soc/clock-controller@e6150000

regards
Philipp

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-08 12:58    [W:0.094 / U:4.828 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site