| Message ID | 20230127001141.407071-9-saravanak@google.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Handled Elsewhere, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | fw_devlink improvements | expand |
On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 04:11:35PM -0800, Saravana Kannan wrote: > fw_devlink could only detect a single and simple cycle because it relied > mainly on device link cycle detection code that only checked for cycles > between devices. The expectation was that the firmware wouldn't have > complicated cycles and multiple cycles between devices. That expectation > has been proven to be wrong. > > For example, fw_devlink could handle: > > +-+ +-+ > |A+------> |B+ > +-+ +++ > ^ | > | | > +----------+ > > But it couldn't handle even something as "simple" as: > > +---------------------+ > | | > v | > +-+ +-+ +++ > |A+------> |B+------> |C| > +-+ +++ +-+ > ^ | > | | > +----------+ > > But firmware has even more complicated cycles like: > > +---------------------+ > | | > v | > +-+ +---+ +++ > +--+A+------>| B +-----> |C|<--+ > | +-+ ++--+ +++ | > | ^ | ^ | | > | | | | | | > | +---------+ +---------+ | > | | > +------------------------------+ > > And this is without including parent child dependencies or nodes in the > cycle that are just firmware nodes that'll never have a struct device > created for them. > > The proper way to treat these devices it to not force any probe ordering > between them, while still enforce dependencies between node in the > cycles (A, B and C) and their consumers. > > So this patch goes all out and just deals with all types of cycles. It > does this by: > > 1. Following dependencies across device links, parent-child and fwnode > links. > 2. When it find cycles, it mark the device links and fwnode links as > such instead of just deleting them or making the indistinguishable > from proxy SYNC_STATE_ONLY device links. > > This way, when new nodes get added, we can immediately find and mark any > new cycles whether the new node is a device or firmware node. ... > + * Check if @sup_handle or any of its ancestors or suppliers direct/indirectly > + * depend on @con. This function can detect multiple cyles between @sup_handle A single space is enough. > + * and @con. When such dependency cycles are found, convert all device links > + * created solely by fw_devlink into SYNC_STATE_ONLY device links. Also, mark Ditto. > + * all fwnode links in the cycle with FWLINK_FLAG_CYCLE so that when they are > + * converted into a device link in the future, they are created as > + * SYNC_STATE_ONLY device links. This is the equivalent of doing Ditto. > + * fw_devlink=permissive just between the devices in the cycle. We need to do > + * this because, at this point, fw_devlink can't tell which of these > + * dependencies is not a real dependency. > + * > + * Return true if one or more cycles were found. Otherwise, return false. Return: (you may run `kernel-doc -v ...` to see all warnings) ... > +static bool __fw_devlink_relax_cycles(struct device *con, > + struct fwnode_handle *sup_handle) > +{ > + struct fwnode_link *link; > + struct device_link *dev_link; > + struct device *sup_dev = NULL, *par_dev = NULL; You can put it the first line since it's long enough. But why do you need sup_dev assignment? > + bool ret = false; > + > + if (!sup_handle) > + return false; > + > + /* > + * We aren't trying to find all cycles. Just a cycle between con and > + * sup_handle. > + */ > + if (sup_handle->flags & FWNODE_FLAG_VISITED) > + return false; > + > + sup_handle->flags |= FWNODE_FLAG_VISITED; > + sup_dev = get_dev_from_fwnode(sup_handle); > + I would put it closer to the condition: > + /* Termination condition. */ > + if (sup_dev == con) { /* Get supplier device and check for termination condition */ sup_dev = get_dev_from_fwnode(sup_handle); if (sup_dev == con) { > + ret = true; > + goto out; > + } > + > + /* > + * If sup_dev is bound to a driver and @con hasn't started binding to > + * a driver, @sup_dev can't be a consumer of @con. So, no need to sup_dev or @sup_dev? What's the difference? Should you spell one of them in full? > + * check further. > + */ > + if (sup_dev && sup_dev->links.status == DL_DEV_DRIVER_BOUND && As in the comment above, the single space is enough. > + con->links.status == DL_DEV_NO_DRIVER) { > + ret = false; > + goto out; > + } > + > + list_for_each_entry(link, &sup_handle->suppliers, c_hook) { > + if (__fw_devlink_relax_cycles(con, link->supplier)) { > + __fwnode_link_cycle(link); > + ret = true; > + } > + } > + > + /* > + * Give priority to device parent over fwnode parent to account for any > + * quirks in how fwnodes are converted to devices. > + */ > + if (sup_dev) { > + par_dev = sup_dev->parent; > + get_device(par_dev); > + } else { > + par_dev = fwnode_get_next_parent_dev(sup_handle); > + } if (sup_dev) par_dev = get_device(sup_dev->parent); else par_dev = fwnode_get_next_parent_dev(sup_handle); > + if (par_dev) > + ret |= __fw_devlink_relax_cycles(con, par_dev->fwnode); Instead I would rather do a similar pattern of the ret assignment as elsewhere in the function. if (par_dev && __fw_devlink_relax_cycles(con, par_dev->fwnode)) ret = true; > + if (!sup_dev) > + goto out; > + > + list_for_each_entry(dev_link, &sup_dev->links.suppliers, c_node) { > + /* > + * Ignore a SYNC_STATE_ONLY flag only if it wasn't marked as a > + * such due to a cycle. > + */ > + if (device_link_flag_is_sync_state_only(dev_link->flags) && > + !(dev_link->flags & DL_FLAG_CYCLE)) > + continue; > + > + if (__fw_devlink_relax_cycles(con, > + dev_link->supplier->fwnode)) { Keep it on one line. > + fw_devlink_relax_link(dev_link); > + dev_link->flags |= DL_FLAG_CYCLE; > + ret = true; > + } > + } > + > +out: > + sup_handle->flags &= ~FWNODE_FLAG_VISITED; > + put_device(sup_dev); > + put_device(par_dev); > + return ret; > +}
Hi Andy, On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 10:43 AM Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 04:11:35PM -0800, Saravana Kannan wrote: > > + * Check if @sup_handle or any of its ancestors or suppliers direct/indirectly > > + * depend on @con. This function can detect multiple cyles between @sup_handle > > A single space is enough. It's very common to write two spaces after a full stop. When joining two sentences on separate lines in vim using SHIFT-J, vim will make sure there are two spaces. Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 10:52:02AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 10:43 AM Andy Shevchenko > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 04:11:35PM -0800, Saravana Kannan wrote: > > > + * Check if @sup_handle or any of its ancestors or suppliers direct/indirectly > > > + * depend on @con. This function can detect multiple cyles between @sup_handle > > > > A single space is enough. > > It's very common to write two spaces after a full stop. > When joining two sentences on separate lines in vim using SHIFT-J, > vim will make sure there are two spaces. But is this consistent with all kernel doc comments in the core.c? I'm fine with either as long as it's consistent.
Hi Andy, On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 11:10 AM Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 10:52:02AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 10:43 AM Andy Shevchenko > > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 04:11:35PM -0800, Saravana Kannan wrote: > > > > + * Check if @sup_handle or any of its ancestors or suppliers direct/indirectly > > > > + * depend on @con. This function can detect multiple cyles between @sup_handle > > > > > > A single space is enough. > > > > It's very common to write two spaces after a full stop. See e.g.: git grep "\. [^ ] > > When joining two sentences on separate lines in vim using SHIFT-J, > > vim will make sure there are two spaces. > > But is this consistent with all kernel doc comments in the core.c? Probably there are inconsistencies... (Aren't there everywhere?) > I'm fine with either as long as it's consistent. At least the kerneldoc source will look similar to the PDF output (LaTeX inserts more space after a full stop automatically ;-). Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 1:43 AM Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 04:11:35PM -0800, Saravana Kannan wrote: > > fw_devlink could only detect a single and simple cycle because it relied > > mainly on device link cycle detection code that only checked for cycles > > between devices. The expectation was that the firmware wouldn't have > > complicated cycles and multiple cycles between devices. That expectation > > has been proven to be wrong. > > > > For example, fw_devlink could handle: > > > > +-+ +-+ > > |A+------> |B+ > > +-+ +++ > > ^ | > > | | > > +----------+ > > > > But it couldn't handle even something as "simple" as: > > > > +---------------------+ > > | | > > v | > > +-+ +-+ +++ > > |A+------> |B+------> |C| > > +-+ +++ +-+ > > ^ | > > | | > > +----------+ > > > > But firmware has even more complicated cycles like: > > > > +---------------------+ > > | | > > v | > > +-+ +---+ +++ > > +--+A+------>| B +-----> |C|<--+ > > | +-+ ++--+ +++ | > > | ^ | ^ | | > > | | | | | | > > | +---------+ +---------+ | > > | | > > +------------------------------+ > > > > And this is without including parent child dependencies or nodes in the > > cycle that are just firmware nodes that'll never have a struct device > > created for them. > > > > The proper way to treat these devices it to not force any probe ordering > > between them, while still enforce dependencies between node in the > > cycles (A, B and C) and their consumers. > > > > So this patch goes all out and just deals with all types of cycles. It > > does this by: > > > > 1. Following dependencies across device links, parent-child and fwnode > > links. > > 2. When it find cycles, it mark the device links and fwnode links as > > such instead of just deleting them or making the indistinguishable > > from proxy SYNC_STATE_ONLY device links. > > > > This way, when new nodes get added, we can immediately find and mark any > > new cycles whether the new node is a device or firmware node. > > ... > > > + * Check if @sup_handle or any of its ancestors or suppliers direct/indirectly > > + * depend on @con. This function can detect multiple cyles between @sup_handle > > A single space is enough. > > > + * and @con. When such dependency cycles are found, convert all device links > > + * created solely by fw_devlink into SYNC_STATE_ONLY device links. Also, mark > > Ditto. > > > + * all fwnode links in the cycle with FWLINK_FLAG_CYCLE so that when they are > > + * converted into a device link in the future, they are created as > > + * SYNC_STATE_ONLY device links. This is the equivalent of doing > > Ditto. Lol, you are the king of nit picks :) I don't know how you even notice these :) I don't like the double spacing either, but as Geert pointed out, vim inserts them when I use it to auto word-wrap comment blocks. I'll try to address them as I find them, but I'm not going to send out revisions of patches just for double spaces. > > > + * fw_devlink=permissive just between the devices in the cycle. We need to do > > + * this because, at this point, fw_devlink can't tell which of these > > + * dependencies is not a real dependency. > > + * > > + * Return true if one or more cycles were found. Otherwise, return false. > > Return: I'm following the rest of the function docs in this file. > > (you may run `kernel-doc -v ...` to see all warnings) Hmmm I ran it on the patch file and it didn't give me anything useful. Running it on the whole file is just a lot of lines to dig through. > > ... > > > +static bool __fw_devlink_relax_cycles(struct device *con, > > + struct fwnode_handle *sup_handle) > > +{ > > + struct fwnode_link *link; > > + struct device_link *dev_link; > > > + struct device *sup_dev = NULL, *par_dev = NULL; > > You can put it the first line since it's long enough. Wait, is that a style guideline to have the longer lines first? > But why do you need sup_dev assignment? Defensive programming I suppose. I can see this function being refactored in the future where a goto out; is inserted before sup_dev is assigned. And then the put_device(sup_dev) at "out" will end up operating on some junk value and causing memory corruption. > > > + bool ret = false; > > + > > + if (!sup_handle) > > + return false; > > + > > + /* > > + * We aren't trying to find all cycles. Just a cycle between con and > > + * sup_handle. > > + */ > > + if (sup_handle->flags & FWNODE_FLAG_VISITED) > > + return false; > > + > > + sup_handle->flags |= FWNODE_FLAG_VISITED; > > > + sup_dev = get_dev_from_fwnode(sup_handle); > > + > > I would put it closer to the condition: > > > + /* Termination condition. */ > > + if (sup_dev == con) { > > /* Get supplier device and check for termination condition */ > sup_dev = get_dev_from_fwnode(sup_handle); > if (sup_dev == con) { I put it the way it is because sup_dev is used for more than just checking for termination condition. > > > + ret = true; > > + goto out; > > + } > > + > > + /* > > + * If sup_dev is bound to a driver and @con hasn't started binding to > > + * a driver, @sup_dev can't be a consumer of @con. So, no need to > > sup_dev or @sup_dev? What's the difference? Should you spell one of them > in full? Probably copy-pasta from a function doc. I'll make it sup_dev. > > > + * check further. > > + */ > > + if (sup_dev && sup_dev->links.status == DL_DEV_DRIVER_BOUND && > > As in the comment above, the single space is enough. > > > + con->links.status == DL_DEV_NO_DRIVER) { > > + ret = false; > > + goto out; > > + } > > + > > + list_for_each_entry(link, &sup_handle->suppliers, c_hook) { > > + if (__fw_devlink_relax_cycles(con, link->supplier)) { > > + __fwnode_link_cycle(link); > > + ret = true; > > + } > > + } > > + > > + /* > > + * Give priority to device parent over fwnode parent to account for any > > + * quirks in how fwnodes are converted to devices. > > + */ > > > + if (sup_dev) { > > + par_dev = sup_dev->parent; > > + get_device(par_dev); > > + } else { > > + par_dev = fwnode_get_next_parent_dev(sup_handle); > > + } > > if (sup_dev) > par_dev = get_device(sup_dev->parent); > else > par_dev = fwnode_get_next_parent_dev(sup_handle); Ack, thanks. Makes it nicer. > > > + if (par_dev) > > + ret |= __fw_devlink_relax_cycles(con, par_dev->fwnode); > > Instead I would rather do a similar pattern of the ret assignment as elsewhere > in the function. > > if (par_dev && __fw_devlink_relax_cycles(con, par_dev->fwnode)) > ret = true; Ack. Good suggestion! > > > + if (!sup_dev) > > + goto out; > > + > > + list_for_each_entry(dev_link, &sup_dev->links.suppliers, c_node) { > > + /* > > + * Ignore a SYNC_STATE_ONLY flag only if it wasn't marked as a > > + * such due to a cycle. > > + */ > > + if (device_link_flag_is_sync_state_only(dev_link->flags) && > > + !(dev_link->flags & DL_FLAG_CYCLE)) > > + continue; > > + > > + if (__fw_devlink_relax_cycles(con, > > + dev_link->supplier->fwnode)) { > > Keep it on one line. It'll make it > 80. Is this some recent change about allowing > 80 cols? I'm leaving it as is for now. > > + fw_devlink_relax_link(dev_link); > > + dev_link->flags |= DL_FLAG_CYCLE; > > + ret = true; > > + } > > + } > > + > > +out: > > + sup_handle->flags &= ~FWNODE_FLAG_VISITED; > > + put_device(sup_dev); > > + put_device(par_dev); > > + return ret; > > +} > > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kernel-team+unsubscribe@android.com. >
On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 11:34:28PM -0800, Saravana Kannan wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 1:43 AM Andy Shevchenko > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 04:11:35PM -0800, Saravana Kannan wrote: ... > Lol, you are the king of nit picks :) Not always, only when it comes with something else. ... > > > + * Return true if one or more cycles were found. Otherwise, return false. > > > > Return: > > I'm following the rest of the function docs in this file. Okay, it makes sense. We will need to address them all. > > (you may run `kernel-doc -v ...` to see all warnings) > > Hmmm I ran it on the patch file and it didn't give me anything useful. > Running it on the whole file is just a lot of lines to dig through. The function description missing Return section. Something like this I can get from the kernel doc without it. ... > > > +static bool __fw_devlink_relax_cycles(struct device *con, > > > + struct fwnode_handle *sup_handle) > > > +{ > > > + struct fwnode_link *link; > > > + struct device_link *dev_link; > > > > > + struct device *sup_dev = NULL, *par_dev = NULL; > > > > You can put it the first line since it's long enough. > > Wait, is that a style guideline to have the longer lines first? No, but it's easier to read. > > But why do you need sup_dev assignment? > > Defensive programming I suppose. I can see this function being > refactored in the future where a goto out; is inserted before sup_dev > is assigned. And then the put_device(sup_dev) at "out" will end up > operating on some junk value and causing memory corruption. We don't need to be defensive here. Moreover, it's harder and easy to make a mistake with predefined values (it's actually better NOT to define anything qr at least define as closest to its user as possible, so you want miss the compiler warnings as I believe you run your compiler with `make W=1 ...`, and if not, I highly recommend to get this habit). ... > > > + sup_dev = get_dev_from_fwnode(sup_handle); > > > + > > > > I would put it closer to the condition: > > > > > + /* Termination condition. */ > > > + if (sup_dev == con) { > > > > /* Get supplier device and check for termination condition */ > > sup_dev = get_dev_from_fwnode(sup_handle); > > if (sup_dev == con) { > > I put it the way it is because sup_dev is used for more than just > checking for termination condition. Yes, but still it's better to see what you are actually checking. > > > + ret = true; > > > + goto out; > > > + } ... > > > + if (__fw_devlink_relax_cycles(con, > > > + dev_link->supplier->fwnode)) { > > > > Keep it on one line. > > It'll make it > 80. Is this some recent change about allowing > 80 > cols? I'm leaving it as is for now. Is it a problem? Do you have any tool that complains about it?
Hi Andy, On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 1:16 PM Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 11:34:28PM -0800, Saravana Kannan wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 1:43 AM Andy Shevchenko > > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 04:11:35PM -0800, Saravana Kannan wrote: > > > > +static bool __fw_devlink_relax_cycles(struct device *con, > > > > + struct fwnode_handle *sup_handle) > > > > +{ > > > > + struct fwnode_link *link; > > > > + struct device_link *dev_link; > > > > > > > + struct device *sup_dev = NULL, *par_dev = NULL; > > > > > > You can put it the first line since it's long enough. > > > > Wait, is that a style guideline to have the longer lines first? > > No, but it's easier to read. Yes it is, "reverse xmas tree" local variable ordering: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.2-rc6/source/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst#L272 Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 03:36:04PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 1:16 PM Andy Shevchenko > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 11:34:28PM -0800, Saravana Kannan wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 1:43 AM Andy Shevchenko > > > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 04:11:35PM -0800, Saravana Kannan wrote: > > > > > +static bool __fw_devlink_relax_cycles(struct device *con, > > > > > + struct fwnode_handle *sup_handle) > > > > > +{ > > > > > + struct fwnode_link *link; > > > > > + struct device_link *dev_link; > > > > > > > > > + struct device *sup_dev = NULL, *par_dev = NULL; > > > > > > > > You can put it the first line since it's long enough. > > > > > > Wait, is that a style guideline to have the longer lines first? > > > > No, but it's easier to read. > > Yes it is, "reverse xmas tree" local variable ordering: > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.2-rc6/source/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst#L272 Good to know, thanks!
diff --git a/drivers/base/core.c b/drivers/base/core.c index b61d5d86a600..fbb843220458 100644 --- a/drivers/base/core.c +++ b/drivers/base/core.c @@ -1865,47 +1865,6 @@ static void fw_devlink_unblock_consumers(struct device *dev) device_links_write_unlock(); } -/** - * fw_devlink_relax_cycle - Convert cyclic links to SYNC_STATE_ONLY links - * @con: Device to check dependencies for. - * @sup: Device to check against. - * - * Check if @sup depends on @con or any device dependent on it (its child or - * its consumer etc). When such a cyclic dependency is found, convert all - * device links created solely by fw_devlink into SYNC_STATE_ONLY device links. - * This is the equivalent of doing fw_devlink=permissive just between the - * devices in the cycle. We need to do this because, at this point, fw_devlink - * can't tell which of these dependencies is not a real dependency. - * - * Return 1 if a cycle is found. Otherwise, return 0. - */ -static int fw_devlink_relax_cycle(struct device *con, void *sup) -{ - struct device_link *link; - int ret; - - if (con == sup) - return 1; - - ret = device_for_each_child(con, sup, fw_devlink_relax_cycle); - if (ret) - return ret; - - list_for_each_entry(link, &con->links.consumers, s_node) { - if (!(link->flags & DL_FLAG_CYCLE) && - device_link_flag_is_sync_state_only(link->flags)) - continue; - - if (!fw_devlink_relax_cycle(link->consumer, sup)) - continue; - - ret = 1; - - fw_devlink_relax_link(link); - link->flags |= DL_FLAG_CYCLE; - } - return ret; -} static bool fwnode_init_without_drv(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode) { @@ -1936,6 +1895,113 @@ static bool fwnode_ancestor_init_without_drv(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode) return false; } +/** + * __fw_devlink_relax_cycles - Relax and mark dependency cycles. + * @con: Potential consumer device. + * @sup_handle: Potential supplier's fwnode. + * + * Needs to be called with fwnode_lock and device link lock held. + * + * Check if @sup_handle or any of its ancestors or suppliers direct/indirectly + * depend on @con. This function can detect multiple cyles between @sup_handle + * and @con. When such dependency cycles are found, convert all device links + * created solely by fw_devlink into SYNC_STATE_ONLY device links. Also, mark + * all fwnode links in the cycle with FWLINK_FLAG_CYCLE so that when they are + * converted into a device link in the future, they are created as + * SYNC_STATE_ONLY device links. This is the equivalent of doing + * fw_devlink=permissive just between the devices in the cycle. We need to do + * this because, at this point, fw_devlink can't tell which of these + * dependencies is not a real dependency. + * + * Return true if one or more cycles were found. Otherwise, return false. + */ +static bool __fw_devlink_relax_cycles(struct device *con, + struct fwnode_handle *sup_handle) +{ + struct fwnode_link *link; + struct device_link *dev_link; + struct device *sup_dev = NULL, *par_dev = NULL; + bool ret = false; + + if (!sup_handle) + return false; + + /* + * We aren't trying to find all cycles. Just a cycle between con and + * sup_handle. + */ + if (sup_handle->flags & FWNODE_FLAG_VISITED) + return false; + + sup_handle->flags |= FWNODE_FLAG_VISITED; + + sup_dev = get_dev_from_fwnode(sup_handle); + + /* Termination condition. */ + if (sup_dev == con) { + ret = true; + goto out; + } + + /* + * If sup_dev is bound to a driver and @con hasn't started binding to + * a driver, @sup_dev can't be a consumer of @con. So, no need to + * check further. + */ + if (sup_dev && sup_dev->links.status == DL_DEV_DRIVER_BOUND && + con->links.status == DL_DEV_NO_DRIVER) { + ret = false; + goto out; + } + + list_for_each_entry(link, &sup_handle->suppliers, c_hook) { + if (__fw_devlink_relax_cycles(con, link->supplier)) { + __fwnode_link_cycle(link); + ret = true; + } + } + + /* + * Give priority to device parent over fwnode parent to account for any + * quirks in how fwnodes are converted to devices. + */ + if (sup_dev) { + par_dev = sup_dev->parent; + get_device(par_dev); + } else { + par_dev = fwnode_get_next_parent_dev(sup_handle); + } + + if (par_dev) + ret |= __fw_devlink_relax_cycles(con, par_dev->fwnode); + + if (!sup_dev) + goto out; + + list_for_each_entry(dev_link, &sup_dev->links.suppliers, c_node) { + /* + * Ignore a SYNC_STATE_ONLY flag only if it wasn't marked as a + * such due to a cycle. + */ + if (device_link_flag_is_sync_state_only(dev_link->flags) && + !(dev_link->flags & DL_FLAG_CYCLE)) + continue; + + if (__fw_devlink_relax_cycles(con, + dev_link->supplier->fwnode)) { + fw_devlink_relax_link(dev_link); + dev_link->flags |= DL_FLAG_CYCLE; + ret = true; + } + } + +out: + sup_handle->flags &= ~FWNODE_FLAG_VISITED; + put_device(sup_dev); + put_device(par_dev); + return ret; +} + /** * fw_devlink_create_devlink - Create a device link from a consumer to fwnode * @con: consumer device for the device link @@ -1988,6 +2054,21 @@ static int fw_devlink_create_devlink(struct device *con, fwnode_is_ancestor_of(sup_handle, con->fwnode)) return -EINVAL; + /* + * SYNC_STATE_ONLY device links don't block probing and supports cycles. + * So cycle detection isn't necessary and shouldn't be done. + */ + if (!(flags & DL_FLAG_SYNC_STATE_ONLY)) { + device_links_write_lock(); + if (__fw_devlink_relax_cycles(con, sup_handle)) { + __fwnode_link_cycle(link); + flags = fw_devlink_get_flags(link->flags); + dev_info(con, "Fixed dependency cycle(s) with %pfwf\n", + sup_handle); + } + device_links_write_unlock(); + } + if (sup_handle->flags & FWNODE_FLAG_NOT_DEVICE) sup_dev = fwnode_get_next_parent_dev(sup_handle); else @@ -2001,23 +2082,16 @@ static int fw_devlink_create_devlink(struct device *con, */ if (sup_dev->links.status == DL_DEV_NO_DRIVER && sup_handle->flags & FWNODE_FLAG_INITIALIZED) { + dev_dbg(con, + "Not linking %pfwf - dev might never probe\n", + sup_handle); ret = -EINVAL; goto out; } - /* - * If this fails, it is due to cycles in device links. Just - * give up on this link and treat it as invalid. - */ - if (!device_link_add(con, sup_dev, flags) && - !(flags & DL_FLAG_SYNC_STATE_ONLY)) { - dev_info(con, "Fixing up cyclic dependency with %s\n", - dev_name(sup_dev)); - device_links_write_lock(); - fw_devlink_relax_cycle(con, sup_dev); - device_links_write_unlock(); - device_link_add(con, sup_dev, - FW_DEVLINK_FLAGS_PERMISSIVE); + if (!device_link_add(con, sup_dev, flags)) { + dev_err(con, "Failed to create device link with %s\n", + dev_name(sup_dev)); ret = -EINVAL; } @@ -2030,49 +2104,12 @@ static int fw_devlink_create_devlink(struct device *con, */ if (fwnode_init_without_drv(sup_handle) || fwnode_ancestor_init_without_drv(sup_handle)) { - dev_dbg(con, "Not linking %pfwP - Might never probe\n", + dev_dbg(con, "Not linking %pfwf - might never become dev\n", sup_handle); return -EINVAL; } - /* - * DL_FLAG_SYNC_STATE_ONLY doesn't block probing and supports - * cycles. So cycle detection isn't necessary and shouldn't be - * done. - */ - if (flags & DL_FLAG_SYNC_STATE_ONLY) - return -EAGAIN; - - /* - * If we can't find the supplier device from its fwnode, it might be - * due to a cyclic dependency between fwnodes. Some of these cycles can - * be broken by applying logic. Check for these types of cycles and - * break them so that devices in the cycle probe properly. - * - * If the supplier's parent is dependent on the consumer, then the - * consumer and supplier have a cyclic dependency. Since fw_devlink - * can't tell which of the inferred dependencies are incorrect, don't - * enforce probe ordering between any of the devices in this cyclic - * dependency. Do this by relaxing all the fw_devlink device links in - * this cycle and by treating the fwnode link between the consumer and - * the supplier as an invalid dependency. - */ - sup_dev = fwnode_get_next_parent_dev(sup_handle); - if (sup_dev && device_is_dependent(con, sup_dev)) { - dev_info(con, "Fixing up cyclic dependency with %pfwP (%s)\n", - sup_handle, dev_name(sup_dev)); - device_links_write_lock(); - fw_devlink_relax_cycle(con, sup_dev); - device_links_write_unlock(); - ret = -EINVAL; - } else { - /* - * Can't check for cycles or no cycles. So let's try - * again later. - */ - ret = -EAGAIN; - } - + ret = -EAGAIN; out: put_device(sup_dev); return ret; @@ -2179,7 +2216,6 @@ static void __fw_devlink_link_to_suppliers(struct device *dev, list_for_each_entry_safe(link, tmp, &fwnode->suppliers, c_hook) { int ret; - struct device *sup_dev; struct fwnode_handle *sup = link->supplier; ret = fw_devlink_create_devlink(dev, sup, link); @@ -2187,27 +2223,6 @@ static void __fw_devlink_link_to_suppliers(struct device *dev, continue; __fwnode_link_del(link); - - /* If no device link was created, nothing more to do. */ - if (ret) - continue; - - /* - * If a device link was successfully created to a supplier, we - * now need to try and link the supplier to all its suppliers. - * - * This is needed to detect and delete false dependencies in - * fwnode links that haven't been converted to a device link - * yet. See comments in fw_devlink_create_devlink() for more - * details on the false dependency. - * - * Without deleting these false dependencies, some devices will - * never probe because they'll keep waiting for their false - * dependency fwnode links to be converted to device links. - */ - sup_dev = get_dev_from_fwnode(sup); - __fw_devlink_link_to_suppliers(sup_dev, sup_dev->fwnode); - put_device(sup_dev); } /*
fw_devlink could only detect a single and simple cycle because it relied mainly on device link cycle detection code that only checked for cycles between devices. The expectation was that the firmware wouldn't have complicated cycles and multiple cycles between devices. That expectation has been proven to be wrong. For example, fw_devlink could handle: +-+ +-+ |A+------> |B+ +-+ +++ ^ | | | +----------+ But it couldn't handle even something as "simple" as: +---------------------+ | | v | +-+ +-+ +++ |A+------> |B+------> |C| +-+ +++ +-+ ^ | | | +----------+ But firmware has even more complicated cycles like: +---------------------+ | | v | +-+ +---+ +++ +--+A+------>| B +-----> |C|<--+ | +-+ ++--+ +++ | | ^ | ^ | | | | | | | | | +---------+ +---------+ | | | +------------------------------+ And this is without including parent child dependencies or nodes in the cycle that are just firmware nodes that'll never have a struct device created for them. The proper way to treat these devices it to not force any probe ordering between them, while still enforce dependencies between node in the cycles (A, B and C) and their consumers. So this patch goes all out and just deals with all types of cycles. It does this by: 1. Following dependencies across device links, parent-child and fwnode links. 2. When it find cycles, it mark the device links and fwnode links as such instead of just deleting them or making the indistinguishable from proxy SYNC_STATE_ONLY device links. This way, when new nodes get added, we can immediately find and mark any new cycles whether the new node is a device or firmware node. Fixes: 2de9d8e0d2fe ("driver core: fw_devlink: Improve handling of cyclic dependencies") Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com> --- drivers/base/core.c | 245 +++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- 1 file changed, 130 insertions(+), 115 deletions(-)