From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C73853DEFF7; Wed, 11 Mar 2026 12:13:43 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773231223; cv=none; b=jk9m9r8OXUMDvKeIZsIixSx7WEfKTYoVzlY8+swM7Ar8dLMNQqX6KyklNcOLTXz0c/b8lpP9XUK0Mw52Wy6Shq4a9lFoyOcNjCpFS6RcXdYBaSDHqvffADrsKQb+EQf0zI4yrP5BNp24iv76pv45qlXQ6YQVjHRTrS31G8gSjd0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773231223; c=relaxed/simple; bh=eIF0LHq5EjuE0G5uZIgYim19/GJ+ngAdSsJDrDYWfD8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=m3eA21C8Vgv1zuSuEXrO1BprVsnmk/jQLmp7D6yUfAuo7FsvrmVr5QbzZ6jPdmix5GjvnMoZlAWCD4S2o6PvB3mYcOSDQSJ0S0FRWLJmyXX47ErSdxuG1nOIBmkKE+vhpCvnWKsAQO+rOmjbKusYGNhkBOpMbIzPhq6KDI1QhAc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=fcwx+uK4; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="fcwx+uK4" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AFDC2C4CEF7; Wed, 11 Mar 2026 12:13:37 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1773231223; bh=eIF0LHq5EjuE0G5uZIgYim19/GJ+ngAdSsJDrDYWfD8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=fcwx+uK4CECDkkiNcQcHrQkqjpTAf9sp25oL40xUeGeGp3dmc19aySgnxxKTW4YVx qp36aO11TymmE/ARwHk0ZtnGB15yuAFOxgtY1UqFqazONp44PxKwN1v2kGhxmj/C38 IsPgBBHO5rQ3/vPeCaccWRp1/PRec+Wfj9JD/p5hPus4MDWYBXy2WIM8xlog4INY8q z2gjj23xerTnhOWoIrJekN3bC570oNsR78W81FXCa9jOLhQEF2J4hYqQKTEopxnEB+ A30uYriov7NAj6V4zzkpps7K78W4AP0BxbXxkBjvN520UxD3D4jWs0JNfvvSqlAM/i RKyw5Qt6vM94Q== Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2026 13:13:34 +0100 From: Niklas Cassel To: Danilo Krummrich Cc: Manivannan Sadhasivam , Robin Murphy , Manivannan Sadhasivam , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Krzysztof =?utf-8?Q?Wilczy=C5=84ski?= , Rob Herring , Bjorn Helgaas , Heiko Stuebner , Shawn Lin , Hans Zhang <18255117159@163.com>, Nicolas Frattaroli , Wilfred Mallawa , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Anand Moon , Grimmauld , Greg Kroah-Hartman , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , driver-core@lists.linux.dev, Lukas Wunner Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] PCI: dw-rockchip: Enable async probe by default Message-ID: 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> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 12:46:03PM +0100, Danilo Krummrich wrote: > 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?) Right now it will print a warning even when trying to load a PHY driver that is already loaded (e.g. if the PHY driver is built as built-in): https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/v7.0-rc3/drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c#L806-L815 If the PHY driver is built as a module, then I assume that the deadlock warning is legit. Kind regards, Niklas