Re: [PATCH 2/2] pinctrl: starfive: jh7100: ignore disabled device tree nodes

[Nam Cao <namcao@linutronix.de>]

Hi Emil,

On Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 03:28:27PM +0100, Emil Renner Berthing wrote:
> Nam Cao wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/starfive/pinctrl-starfive-jh7100.c b/drivers/pinctrl/starfive/pinctrl-starfive-jh7100.c
> > index 530fe340a9a1..561fd0c6b9b0 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/starfive/pinctrl-starfive-jh7100.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/starfive/pinctrl-starfive-jh7100.c
> > @@ -492,7 +492,7 @@ static int starfive_dt_node_to_map(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
> >
> > nmaps = 0;
> > ngroups = 0;
> > - for_each_child_of_node(np, child) {
> > + for_each_available_child_of_node(np, child) {
>
> Is this safe to do? I mean will the children considered "available" not change
> as drivers are loaded during boot so this is racy?

I think if node removal like this causes race condition, we would
already have race condition with node addition too: "what if the nodes
are added while the drivers are being loaded?"

At least with U-Boot, the device tree overlay is "merged" into the base
device tree, before the kernel even runs, so no race there. I don't know
if there are any cases where the device tree overlay is not guaranteed
to be applied before driver loading, but those cases do not sound sane
to me: they would cause race condition, regardless of whether nodes are
added or removed.

> Also arguably this is not a bugfix, but a new feature.

I'm not sure myself, I haven't seen official documentation/rules about
this. But many people do consider this to be a bug:

"Though you can add/override 'status' with 'status = "disabled";' which
should be treated very similar to a node not being present. I say
similar because it's a source of bugs for the OS to fail to pay
attention to status property." - Rob Herring [1].

"Linux has widespread use of the "status" property to indicate that a
node does not exist. (...). Expect efforts to fix the kernel code to
respect the "status" property." - elinux.org [2].

And I do agree with them. When someone write a device tree with some
nodes with "status = disabled" for whatever reasons, clearly they intend
to exclude these nodes.

Though I must admit that I am still quite new, so please correct me if
my reasoning/understanding is flawed.

Best regards,
Nam

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAL_JsqLV5d5cL3o3Dx=--zGD37c5O09rL9AXyRFmceTfBHt3Zg@mail.gmail.com/
[2] https://elinux.org/Device_Tree_Linux#status_property