On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 8:03 PM Saravana Kannan <sarava...@google.com> wrote:
>
> This patch series solves two general issues with fw_devlink=on
>
> Patch 1/2 addresses the issue of firmware nodes that look like they'll
> have struct devices created for them, but will never actually have
> struct devices added for them. For example, DT nodes with a compatible
> property that don't have devices added for them.
>
> Patch 2/2 address (for static kernels) the issue of optional suppliers
> that'll never have a driver registered for them. So, if the device could
> have probed with fw_devlink=permissive with a static kernel, this patch
> should allow those devices to probe with a fw_devlink=on. This doesn't
> solve it for the case where modules are enabled because there's no way
> to tell if a driver will never be registered or it's just about to be
> registered. I have some other ideas for that, but it'll have to come
> later thinking about it a bit.
>
> These two patches might remove the need for several other patches that
> went in as fixes for commit e590474768f1 ("driver core: Set
> fw_devlink=on by default"), but I think all those fixes are good
> changes. So I think we should leave those in.
>
> Marek, Geert,
>
> Can you try this series on a static kernel with your OF_POPULATED
> changes reverted? I just want to make sure these patches can identify
> and fix those cases.
>
> Tudor,
>
> You should still make the clock driver fix (because it's a bug), but I
> think this series will fix your issue too (even without the clock driver
> fix). Can you please give this a shot?Marek, Geert, Tudor, Forgot to say that this will probably fix your issues only in a static kernel. So please try this with a static kernel. If you can also try and confirm that this does not fix the issue for a modular kernel, that'd be good too. -Saravana > > Marc, > > Can you try this series with the gpiolib fix reverted please? I'm pretty > sure this will fix that case. > > Linus, > > This series very likely removes the need for the gpiolib patch (we can > wait for Marc to confirm). I'm split on whether we should leave it in or > not. Thoughts? > > Thanks, > Saravana > > Saravana Kannan (2): > driver core: fw_devlink: Detect supplier devices that will never be > added > driver core: fw_devlink: Handle missing drivers for optional suppliers > > drivers/base/base.h | 2 + > drivers/base/core.c | 134 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- > drivers/base/dd.c | 5 ++ > 3 files changed, 121 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) > > -- > 2.30.0.365.g02bc693789-goog >
