On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 7:10 AM Guenter Roeck <li...@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 <li...@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-ywh5xh...@mail.gmail.com/ > >>> Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <sarava...@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-sarava...@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? Thanks, Saravana
