From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E84F5106286B for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2026 11:46:14 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:References:From:To:Cc: Subject:Message-Id:Date:Mime-Version:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=XNh8575mb3rw1PNNsJFBh83+Pf3EHw0KHLlZlIBRp3U=; b=hRZ3P0voepvo3F ijtAvTyKxDKrOMmJcyDmnpPRtcp0cC0gSMQJsEyZyk72E+sF9hBoEqXc2zWWtGQGTCbcMaON0BR+3 taMY22TTeADrdvrOvdk3oC7QhDBmwu8E6k7209LwHeNydMGwkihDyS206OvZ7FhZ//C2+P0Mek6lI /acJvsPegcI9X0G4UP4cQB5jxBMRxn3oJuGugSrX/rIfYHSVnXRYa88IFpTHjRDXNN2tFgBo8mqD8 X8fBhvsucBbdYdrp7IgIjk4xUOof7TbjOmUtyQAmhPDsPL6dUCnZuPOYRAOsmtl9pilqzvXBSN6QA 3IYTPa0pOeeGeiXHj4eQ==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1w0I0x-0000000BVWm-2Mh5; Wed, 11 Mar 2026 11:46:11 +0000 Received: from tor.source.kernel.org ([172.105.4.254]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1w0I0w-0000000BVWZ-12UD; Wed, 11 Mar 2026 11:46:10 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (transwarp.subspace.kernel.org [100.75.92.58]) by tor.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1157460145; Wed, 11 Mar 2026 11:46:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 79082C4CEF7; Wed, 11 Mar 2026 11:46:04 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1773229568; bh=mePPF9zcPSvtBJqRo2t1V0QkuJgJRZztiTUUZcbcg0Y=; h=Date:Subject:Cc:To:From:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=LL43S37gfzT/Tm97KcgLsUXSfiOoxXzNEvUrv5x20U2bjXaNgs2ZEmAgEqPArpUoO jMRBsFO1rtnAFbU7NnV1UYL2ZLu78aO4zL8Y7m8Bk2MEOzq5U5kiR9/6SUzZYukt7x YCTfvAKZMs3yfoGP49cGvPDmIt42flrR6PfRuh5zAIQmyzPxgztNsbO/gK+Je4YLce ciCMdoBBXH0iGc+dE87FOkoBu6Uce/jRT/Ya7GEyH4/7KkWuHPyqX8nSztSBQvw3vL L8FegqH/dGZqRNCpbuvVZrTfiR676Um5mvDDVFYh66XpUXS9leC3rE1c8nNUescbmb xFoVtT4VD+7vg== Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2026 12:46:03 +0100 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] PCI: dw-rockchip: Enable async probe by default Cc: "Robin Murphy" , "Manivannan Sadhasivam" , "Lorenzo Pieralisi" , =?utf-8?q?Krzysztof_Wilczy=C5=84ski?= , "Rob Herring" , "Bjorn Helgaas" , "Heiko Stuebner" , "Niklas Cassel" , "Shawn Lin" , "Hans Zhang" <18255117159@163.com>, "Nicolas Frattaroli" , "Wilfred Mallawa" , , , , , "Anand Moon" , "Grimmauld" , "Greg Kroah-Hartman" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , , "Lukas Wunner" To: "Manivannan Sadhasivam" From: "Danilo Krummrich" References: <20260226101032.1042-1-linux.amoon@gmail.com> <177260693908.10259.13055467642416391434.b4-ty@kernel.org> <87bc37ee-234c-4568-b72e-955c130a6838@arm.com> <5d88fb5b-e771-4ea6-8d2c-c5cfd21e5860@arm.com> In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: Upstream kernel work for Rockchip platforms List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "Linux-rockchip" Errors-To: linux-rockchip-bounces+linux-rockchip=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Wed Mar 11, 2026 at 6:24 AM CET, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > I have a contrary view here. If just a single driver or lib doesn't handle async > probe, it cannot just force other drivers to not take the advantage of async > probe. As I said above, enabling async probe easily saves a few hunderd ms or > even more if there are more than one Root Port or Root Complex in an SoC. Then the driver or lib has to be fixed / improved first or the driver core has to be enabled to deal with a case where PROBE_FORCE_SYNCHRONOUS is requested from an async path, etc. In any case, applying the patch and breaking things (knowingly?) doesn't seem like the correct approach. > I strongly agree with you here that the underlying issue should be fixed. But > the real impact to end users is not this splat, but not having the boot time > optimization that this patch brings in. As an end user, one would want their > systems to boot quickly and they wouldn't bother much about a harmless warning > splat appearing in the dmesg log. You mean quickly booting into a "harmless" potential deadlock condition the warning splat tries to make people aware of? :) (Or am I missing a subtle detail and we can never actually end up in a deadlock for some reason?) _______________________________________________ Linux-rockchip mailing list Linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip