From: Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>
To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
Cc: Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>,
Arjun Sreedharan <arjun024@gmail.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-next@vger.kernel.org,
kernel-build-reports@lists.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb:phy: propagate __of_usb_find_phy()'s error on failure
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 09:36:21 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141124153621.GF20705@saruman> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141124151644.GC4061@ulmo.nvidia.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4075 bytes --]
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 04:16:46PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 08:36:46AM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 02:10:41PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 09:23:36PM +0530, Arjun Sreedharan wrote:
> > > > When __of_usb_find_phy() fails, it returns -ENODEV - its
> > > > error code has to be returned by devm_usb_get_phy_by_phandle().
> > > > Only when the former function succeeds and try_module_get()
> > > > fails should -EPROBE_DEFER be returned.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Arjun Sreedharan <arjun024@gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/usb/phy/phy.c | 4 +++-
> > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > This causes a boot regression on at least NVIDIA Dalmore (I boot over
> > > NFS using a USB network adapter).
> > >
> > > The commit message is somewhat insufficient because while it explains
> > > what the code does and asserts that it is the right thing to do, it
> > > fails to explain why.
> >
> > you also fail to explain it causes a regressions with Dalmore.
>
> I thought my explanation below was sufficient, but maybe I should say it
> in other words: __of_usb_find_phy() returns -ENODEV if no PHY was found
> to be registered for a given phandle. That causes the driver to abort
> probing with a -ENODEV error and does not trigger the probe deferral
> that'd be necessary to get the host controller to find the PHY the next
> time it was triggered.
right, and before $subject dev_usb_get_phy_by_phandle() was overwriting
whatever error code passed by __of_usb_find_phy() to -EPROBE_DEFER.
> > This is really the correct patch, we shouldn't be overwritting the
> > error passed in by upper layers.
>
> No, it's very obviously not the correct patch if it causes a regression.
or it exposes a bug elsewhere :-)
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/phy/phy.c b/drivers/usb/phy/phy.c
> > > > index 045cd30..0310112 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/usb/phy/phy.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/usb/phy/phy.c
> > > > @@ -191,7 +191,9 @@ struct usb_phy *devm_usb_get_phy_by_phandle(struct device *dev,
> > > >
> > > > phy = __of_usb_find_phy(node);
> > > > if (IS_ERR(phy) || !try_module_get(phy->dev->driver->owner)) {
> > > > - phy = ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER);
> > > > + if (!IS_ERR(phy))
> > > > + phy = ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER);
> > >
> > > If we look at this closer, __of_usb_find_phy() return a valid pointer if
> > > a PHY was found or ERR_PTR(-ENODEV) otherwise. But since the phandle has
> > > already been validated, the only reason why __of_usb_find_phy() fails is
> > > because the PHY that the phandle refers to hasn't been registered yet.
> > >
> > > Returning -EPROBE_DEFER is the correct thing to do in this situation
> > > because it gives the PHY driver an opportunity to register and the USB
> > > host controller to try probing again. I suppose one could argue that
> > > __of_usb_find_phy() should return ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER) on failure
> > > instead of ERR_PTR(-ENODEV), since evidently the device does exist, it
> > > just hasn't been registered yet. On the other hand it could happen that
> > > the phandle refers to a device tree node that's status = "disabled", in
> > > which case ERR_PTR(-ENODEV) might be appropriate.
> > >
> > > Also, -EPROBE_DEFER isn't really the proper error for try_module_get()
> > > failure. Other functions (usb_get_phy() and usb_get_phy_dev()) return
> > > -ENODEV instead, so it'd be more consistent to stick with that. Hence I
> > > propose something like the below instead.
> >
> > I don't mind patch below, but I want to know why Dalmore regressed with
> > $subject.
>
> Note that this isn't only an issue specific to Dalmore. This affects
> every device that uses a USB PHY and where the PHY is registered after
> the first probe of the USB host controller.
although, I have been running this for the last few days with
BeagleBoneBlack and AM437x SK and haven't noticed any issues.
--
balbi
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>
To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
Cc: Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>,
Arjun Sreedharan <arjun024@gmail.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
<linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
<kernel-build-reports@lists.linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb:phy: propagate __of_usb_find_phy()'s error on failure
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 09:36:21 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141124153621.GF20705@saruman> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141124151644.GC4061@ulmo.nvidia.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4075 bytes --]
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 04:16:46PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 08:36:46AM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 02:10:41PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 09:23:36PM +0530, Arjun Sreedharan wrote:
> > > > When __of_usb_find_phy() fails, it returns -ENODEV - its
> > > > error code has to be returned by devm_usb_get_phy_by_phandle().
> > > > Only when the former function succeeds and try_module_get()
> > > > fails should -EPROBE_DEFER be returned.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Arjun Sreedharan <arjun024@gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/usb/phy/phy.c | 4 +++-
> > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > This causes a boot regression on at least NVIDIA Dalmore (I boot over
> > > NFS using a USB network adapter).
> > >
> > > The commit message is somewhat insufficient because while it explains
> > > what the code does and asserts that it is the right thing to do, it
> > > fails to explain why.
> >
> > you also fail to explain it causes a regressions with Dalmore.
>
> I thought my explanation below was sufficient, but maybe I should say it
> in other words: __of_usb_find_phy() returns -ENODEV if no PHY was found
> to be registered for a given phandle. That causes the driver to abort
> probing with a -ENODEV error and does not trigger the probe deferral
> that'd be necessary to get the host controller to find the PHY the next
> time it was triggered.
right, and before $subject dev_usb_get_phy_by_phandle() was overwriting
whatever error code passed by __of_usb_find_phy() to -EPROBE_DEFER.
> > This is really the correct patch, we shouldn't be overwritting the
> > error passed in by upper layers.
>
> No, it's very obviously not the correct patch if it causes a regression.
or it exposes a bug elsewhere :-)
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/phy/phy.c b/drivers/usb/phy/phy.c
> > > > index 045cd30..0310112 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/usb/phy/phy.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/usb/phy/phy.c
> > > > @@ -191,7 +191,9 @@ struct usb_phy *devm_usb_get_phy_by_phandle(struct device *dev,
> > > >
> > > > phy = __of_usb_find_phy(node);
> > > > if (IS_ERR(phy) || !try_module_get(phy->dev->driver->owner)) {
> > > > - phy = ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER);
> > > > + if (!IS_ERR(phy))
> > > > + phy = ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER);
> > >
> > > If we look at this closer, __of_usb_find_phy() return a valid pointer if
> > > a PHY was found or ERR_PTR(-ENODEV) otherwise. But since the phandle has
> > > already been validated, the only reason why __of_usb_find_phy() fails is
> > > because the PHY that the phandle refers to hasn't been registered yet.
> > >
> > > Returning -EPROBE_DEFER is the correct thing to do in this situation
> > > because it gives the PHY driver an opportunity to register and the USB
> > > host controller to try probing again. I suppose one could argue that
> > > __of_usb_find_phy() should return ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER) on failure
> > > instead of ERR_PTR(-ENODEV), since evidently the device does exist, it
> > > just hasn't been registered yet. On the other hand it could happen that
> > > the phandle refers to a device tree node that's status = "disabled", in
> > > which case ERR_PTR(-ENODEV) might be appropriate.
> > >
> > > Also, -EPROBE_DEFER isn't really the proper error for try_module_get()
> > > failure. Other functions (usb_get_phy() and usb_get_phy_dev()) return
> > > -ENODEV instead, so it'd be more consistent to stick with that. Hence I
> > > propose something like the below instead.
> >
> > I don't mind patch below, but I want to know why Dalmore regressed with
> > $subject.
>
> Note that this isn't only an issue specific to Dalmore. This affects
> every device that uses a USB PHY and where the PHY is registered after
> the first probe of the USB host controller.
although, I have been running this for the last few days with
BeagleBoneBlack and AM437x SK and haven't noticed any issues.
--
balbi
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-11-24 15:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-11-20 15:53 [PATCH] usb:phy: propagate __of_usb_find_phy()'s error on failure Arjun Sreedharan
2014-11-20 19:39 ` Felipe Balbi
[not found] ` <CAJFMrCGbUQar751mOZOJ5Fy=HEDb+L7XjQypJxzyE72T=qoDmw@mail.gmail.com>
2014-11-21 15:03 ` Felipe Balbi
2014-11-24 13:10 ` Thierry Reding
2014-11-24 14:36 ` Felipe Balbi
2014-11-24 14:36 ` Felipe Balbi
2014-11-24 15:16 ` Thierry Reding
2014-11-24 15:36 ` Felipe Balbi [this message]
2014-11-24 15:36 ` Felipe Balbi
2014-11-24 15:37 ` Felipe Balbi
2014-11-24 15:37 ` Felipe Balbi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20141124153621.GF20705@saruman \
--to=balbi@ti.com \
--cc=arjun024@gmail.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=kernel-build-reports@lists.linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=thierry.reding@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.