Re: [PATCH] drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86: Fix multiple instances

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 08:58:30AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 8:39 AM Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 20, 2024 at 05:36:29PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 04:31:21PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 05:25:22PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 04:09:26PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 03:36:48PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 3:10 PM Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 09:45:52AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Each bridge instance creates up to four auxiliary devices with different
> > > > > > > > > names.  However, their IDs are always zero, causing duplicate filename
> > > > > > > > > errors when a system has multiple bridges:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >     sysfs: cannot create duplicate filename '/bus/auxiliary/devices/ti_sn65dsi86.gpio.0'
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Fix this by using a unique instance ID per bridge instance.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Isn't this something that should be handled by the AUX core ? The code
> > > > > > > > below would otherwise need to be duplicated by all drivers, which seems
> > > > > > > > a burden we should avoid.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > According to the documentation, this is the responsibility of the caller
> > > > > > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.11.4/source/include/linux/auxiliary_bus.h#L81
> > > > > > > I believe this is the same for platform devices.
> > > > > > > See also the example at
> > > > > > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.11.4/source/include/linux/auxiliary_bus.h#L116
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Note: the platform bus supports PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO, but the auxiliary
> > > > > > > bus does not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, it does not as it's up to the caller to create a unique name, like
> > > > > > your patch here does.  I'd argue that platform should also not do
> > > > > > automatic device ids, but that's a different argument :)
> > > > >
> > > > > __auxiliary_device_add() creates the device name with
> > > > >
> > > > >   dev_set_name(dev, "%s.%s.%d", modname, auxdev->name, auxdev->id);
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not calling for a PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO-like feature here, but
> > > > > shouldn't the first component of the device name use the parent's name
> > > > > instead of the module name ?
> > > >
> > > > Why would the parent's name not be the module name?  That name is
> > > > guaranteed unique in the system.  If you want "uniqueness" within the
> > > > driver/module, use the name and id field please.
> > > >
> > > > That's worked well so far, but to be fair, aux devices are pretty new.
> > > > What problem is this naming scheme causing?
> > >
> > > Auxiliary devices are created as children of a parent device. When
> > > multiple instances of the same parent type exist, this will be reflected
> > > in the /sys/devices/ devices tree hierarchy without any issue. The
> > > problem comes from the fact the the auxiliary devices need a unique name
> > > for /sys/bus/auxialiary/devices/, where we somehow have to differenciate
> > > devices of identical types.
> > >
> > > Essentially, we're trying to summarize a whole hierarchy (path in
> > > /sys/devices/) into a single string. There are different ways to solve
> > > this. For platform devices, we use a device ID. For I2C devices, we use
> > > the parent's bus number. Other buses use different schemes.
> > >
> > > Geert's patch implements a mechanism in the ti-sn65dsi86 driver to
> > > handle this, and assign an id managed by the parent. In a sense we could
> > > consider this to be similar to what is done for I2C, where the bus
> > > number is also a property of the parent. However, the big difference is
> > > that the I2C bus number is managed by the I2C subsystem, while here the
> > > id is managed by the ti-sn65dsi86 driver, not by the auxiliary device
> > > core. This would require duplicating the same mechanism in every single
> > > driver creating auxiliary devices. This strikes me as a fairly bad idea.
> > > The problem should be solved by the core, not by individual drivers.
> >
> > The "id" is just a unique number, it is "managed" by the thing that is
> > creating the devices themselves, not the aux core code.  I don't see why
> > the i2c bus number has to match the same number that the ti driver
> > creates, it could be anything, as long as it doesn't match anything else
> > currently created by that driver.
> 
> Laurent does not say it has to match the i2c bus number.
> He does think the auxilliary bus should provide a mechanism to
> allocate these IDs (e.g. usin g AUX_DEVID_AUTO?).

As this is the first subsystem to ask for such a thing, I didn't think
it was needed, but the aux subsystem is new :)

> However, using i2c_client->adapter->nr instead of ida_alloc()
> in the TI driver does sound like a good idea to me...

Great!

> > If we had the aux core code create the id, it would just use a unique
> > counter, and that would not reflect any mapping to anything, so I don't
> > see how that is any different here.
> 
> And then we would get something like:
> 
> /sys/bus/auxiliary/devices
> ├── ti_sn65dsi86.gpio.0
> ├── ti_sn65dsi86.pwm.1
> ├── ti_sn65dsi86.aux.2
> ├── ti_sn65dsi86.bridge.3
> ├── ti_sn65dsi86.gpio.4
> ├── ti_sn65dsi86.pwm.5
> ├── ti_sn65dsi86.aux.6
> └── ti_sn65dsi86.bridge.7
> 
> Which is similar to the first approach I tried (calling ida_alloc() in
> ti_sn65dsi86_add_aux_device() instead of ti_sn65dsi86_probe()).

That id scheme looks really odd, don't you think?  Try using the
adapter->nr instead like other aux subsystems already do.

thanks,

greg k-h