Re: [PATCH v2 08/11] driver core: fw_devlink: Make cycle detection more robust

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>]

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;
> +}

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko