All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
To: Timur Tabi <timur@freescale.com>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Andy Fleming <afleming@freescale.com>,
	ddaney.cavm@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] powerpc/85xx: add Fman MDIO muxing support to the P4080DS
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:06:28 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <502AD9F4.10903@freescale.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <502ACA09.6070906@freescale.com>

On 08/14/2012 04:58 PM, Timur Tabi wrote:
> Scott Wood wrote:
> 
>> I think that was internally, and not on this specific comment wording.
>> I don't think that code comment adequately explains things.
> 
> I don't really have any more insight to add.

My point (at least, this part of it) was that more of the insight you've
already provided should be moved from e-mail discussion to the code comment.

>>> otherwise, the mdio-mux code would not prepare the mdio mus in time, and
>>> there would be initialization failures.  Now maybe this goes away with
>>> -EPROBE_DEFER, or maybe it doesn't.  But until we push the DPAA drivers
>>> upstream, we won't know.
>>
>> Do you know if it's theoretically supposed to be fixed and just can't
>> test it, or are you unsure of whether it's even supposed to work?
> 
> I'm not sure of anything.  For one thing, we don't implement EPROBE_DEFER
> in the DPAA drivers, so we'd probably have to fix that before anything.
> And then, I'm just guessing that's the solution.

I feel confident saying it is the solution, at least until it is
demonstrated otherwise.

>> I don't think we should be relying on the order of this list to
>> determine probe order.  For one thing, it won't work if the drivers
>> register after you create the platform devices (e.g. they're modules).
> 
> I agree we should not be relying on the order, but I don't know what to
> do.  EPROBE_DEFER was designed to handle this situation, so my
> recommendation is to worry about it later.  I can beef up the comment to
> talk about that, if you want.

If the DPAA driver doesn't implement it when it's submitted, it's a bug
in the DPAA driver and we should insist it be fixed.  I don't think we
should at all entertain the notion that careful device id list ordering
is even a potential solution.

If anything, I'd make the ordering be "wrong" to force that code path to
be tested -- though ideally there would be a more systematic approach to
such testing, that doesn't require inefficiency during normal boot.

-Scott

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
To: Timur Tabi <timur@freescale.com>
Cc: Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org>,
	Andy Fleming <afleming@freescale.com>, <ddaney.cavm@gmail.com>,
	<linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] powerpc/85xx: add Fman MDIO muxing support to the P4080DS
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:06:28 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <502AD9F4.10903@freescale.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <502ACA09.6070906@freescale.com>

On 08/14/2012 04:58 PM, Timur Tabi wrote:
> Scott Wood wrote:
> 
>> I think that was internally, and not on this specific comment wording.
>> I don't think that code comment adequately explains things.
> 
> I don't really have any more insight to add.

My point (at least, this part of it) was that more of the insight you've
already provided should be moved from e-mail discussion to the code comment.

>>> otherwise, the mdio-mux code would not prepare the mdio mus in time, and
>>> there would be initialization failures.  Now maybe this goes away with
>>> -EPROBE_DEFER, or maybe it doesn't.  But until we push the DPAA drivers
>>> upstream, we won't know.
>>
>> Do you know if it's theoretically supposed to be fixed and just can't
>> test it, or are you unsure of whether it's even supposed to work?
> 
> I'm not sure of anything.  For one thing, we don't implement EPROBE_DEFER
> in the DPAA drivers, so we'd probably have to fix that before anything.
> And then, I'm just guessing that's the solution.

I feel confident saying it is the solution, at least until it is
demonstrated otherwise.

>> I don't think we should be relying on the order of this list to
>> determine probe order.  For one thing, it won't work if the drivers
>> register after you create the platform devices (e.g. they're modules).
> 
> I agree we should not be relying on the order, but I don't know what to
> do.  EPROBE_DEFER was designed to handle this situation, so my
> recommendation is to worry about it later.  I can beef up the comment to
> talk about that, if you want.

If the DPAA driver doesn't implement it when it's submitted, it's a bug
in the DPAA driver and we should insist it be fixed.  I don't think we
should at all entertain the notion that careful device id list ordering
is even a potential solution.

If anything, I'd make the ordering be "wrong" to force that code path to
be tested -- though ideally there would be a more systematic approach to
such testing, that doesn't require inefficiency during normal boot.

-Scott

  reply	other threads:[~2012-08-14 23:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-08-10 22:31 [PATCH 1/2] powerpc/85xx: add the Fman device tree template include files Timur Tabi
2012-08-10 22:31 ` [PATCH 2/2] powerpc/85xx: add Fman MDIO muxing support to the P4080DS Timur Tabi
2012-08-14 21:45   ` Kumar Gala
2012-08-14 21:45     ` Kumar Gala
2012-08-14 21:48     ` Timur Tabi
2012-08-14 21:48       ` Timur Tabi
2012-08-14 21:53       ` Scott Wood
2012-08-14 21:53         ` Scott Wood
2012-08-14 21:58         ` Timur Tabi
2012-08-14 21:58           ` Timur Tabi
2012-08-14 23:06           ` Scott Wood [this message]
2012-08-14 23:06             ` Scott Wood
2012-08-14 23:08             ` Timur Tabi
2012-08-14 23:08               ` Timur Tabi
2012-08-14 23:12               ` Scott Wood
2012-08-14 23:12                 ` Scott Wood
2012-08-10 22:34 ` [PATCH 1/2] powerpc/85xx: add the Fman device tree template include files Scott Wood
2012-08-10 22:34   ` Scott Wood
2012-08-10 22:37   ` Timur Tabi

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=502AD9F4.10903@freescale.com \
    --to=scottwood@freescale.com \
    --cc=afleming@freescale.com \
    --cc=ddaney.cavm@gmail.com \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=timur@freescale.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.