Re: [RESEND PATCH] of: property: do not create clocks device link for clock controllers

[Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>]

On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 06:12:15PM -0800, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 5:35 AM Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 3:11 AM Dmitry Baryshkov
> > <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Do not create device link for clock controllers. Some of the clocks
> > > provided to the device via OF can be the clocks that are just parents to
> > > the clocks provided by this clock controller. Clock subsystem already
> > > has support for handling missing clock parents correctly (clock
> > > orphans). Later when the parent clock is registered, clocks get
> > > populated properly.
> > >
> > > An example of the system where this matters is the SDM8450 MTP board
> > > (see arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-mtp.dts). Here the dispcc uses
> > > clocks provided by dsi0_phy and dsi1_phy device tree nodes. However the
> > > dispcc itself provides clocks to both PHYs, to the PHY parent device,
> > > etc. With just dsi0_phy in place devlink is able to break the
> > > dependency, but with two PHYs, dispcc doesn't get probed at all, thus
> > > breaking display support.
> > >
> > > Cc: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>
> > > Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
> > > Cc: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>
> > > Cc: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@linaro.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > This patch has been posted a year ago in January 2022 ([1]). Since that time
> > > Saravana failed to produce patches to assist in debugging the issue
> > > ([2]) or to fix the issue ([3]). The issue we observe has been described
> > > by Abel at ([4]). As we work on adding support for Dual DSI
> > > configurations, the issue becomes more and more important, since binding
> > > the whole display subsystem fails.
> 
> I did send out a patch series[1] to try and fix this. Heck I even
> talked about this in LPC 2022. So I don't think it's accurate to say I
> didn't help debug this or fix this. There's some email thread in lore
> where Abel gave more details and I figured out the issue and we didn't
> need any more debugging. And then I sent out [1]. Sorry I missed you
> in the cc lise for [1] -- I try to keep track of everyone to cc but
> things slip through the cracks sometimes. But at the same time, it's
> easy to check for emails from me before saying I didn't help or didn't
> send out fixes :)
> 
> If you do try to give [1] a shot, there are a bunch of bugs that
> people pointed out for which I gave fixes on top of [1] in the
> replies. I was supposed to work on v2 over the holidays, but that
> didn't happen because of stuff outside my control.
> 
> > That's ample time to fix this, so I intend to apply this. But I'll
> > give it a few days for comments.
> 
> Rob, I'd recommend not applying this because it'll fix it for Dmitry
> but break someone else's use case. That's the whole reason it takes me
> a while to send out patches -- it's easy to fix it for a subset of
> devices, but fixing something without breaking someone else is harder
> (I still believe it's doable) and it takes a while to test them on all
> the devices I want to test before sending them out.

Okay, will give it a bit longer.

Rob