Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] Bring back driver_deferred_probe_check_state() for now

["Luca Weiss" <luca.weiss@fairphone.com>]

Hi Saravana,

On Tue Aug 16, 2022 at 1:36 AM CEST, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 9:57 AM Luca Weiss <luca.weiss@fairphone.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon Aug 15, 2022 at 1:01 PM CEST, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > > * Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com> [700101 02:00]:
> > > > More fixes/changes are needed before driver_deferred_probe_check_state()
> > > > can be deleted. So, bring it back for now.
> > > >
> > > > Greg,
> > > >
> > > > Can we get this into 5.19? If not, it might not be worth picking up this
> > > > series. I could just do the other/more fixes in time for 5.20.
> > >
> > > Yes please pick this as fixes for v6.0-rc series, it fixes booting for
> > > me. I've replied with fixes tags for the two patches that were causing
> > > regressions for me.
> > >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > for me Patch 1+3 fix display probe on Qualcomm SM6350 (although display
> > for this SoC isn't upstream yet, there are lots of other SoCs with very
> > similar setup).
> >
> > Probe for DPU silently fails, with CONFIG_DEBUG_DRIVER=y we get this:
> >
> > msm-mdss ae00000.mdss: __genpd_dev_pm_attach() failed to find PM domain: -2
> >
> > While I'm not familiar with the specifics of fw_devlink, the dtsi has
> > power-domains = <&dispcc MDSS_GDSC> for this node but it doesn't pick
> > that up for some reason.
> >
> > We can also see that a bit later dispcc finally probes.
>
> Luca,
>
> Can you test with this series instead and see if it fixes this issue?
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220810060040.321697-1-saravanak@google.com/
>

Unfortunately it doesn't seem to work with the 9 patches, and the
attached diff also doesn't seem to make a difference. I do see this in
dmesg which I haven't seen in the past:

[    0.056554] platform 1d87000.phy: Fixed dependency cycle(s) with /soc@0/ufs@1d84000
[    0.060070] platform ae00000.mdss: Fixed dependency cycle(s) with /soc@0/clock-controller@af00000
[    0.060150] platform ae00000.mdss: Failed to create device link with ae00000.mdss
[    0.060188] platform ae00000.mdss: Failed to create device link with ae00000.mdss
[    0.061135] platform c440000.spmi: Failed to create device link with c440000.spmi
[    0.061157] platform c440000.spmi: Failed to create device link with c440000.spmi
[    0.061180] platform c440000.spmi: Failed to create device link with c440000.spmi
[    0.061198] platform c440000.spmi: Failed to create device link with c440000.spmi
[    0.061215] platform c440000.spmi: Failed to create device link with c440000.spmi
[    0.061231] platform c440000.spmi: Failed to create device link with c440000.spmi
[    0.061252] platform c440000.spmi: Failed to create device link with c440000.spmi

Also I'm going to be on holiday from today for about 2 weeks so I won't
be able to test anything in that time.

And in case it's interesting, here's the full dmesg to initramfs:
https://pastebin.com/raw/Fc8W4MVi

Regards
Luca

> You might also need to add this delta on top of the series if the
> series itself isn't sufficient.
> diff --git a/drivers/base/core.c b/drivers/base/core.c
> index 2f012e826986..866755d8ad95 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/core.c
> @@ -2068,7 +2068,11 @@ static int fw_devlink_create_devlink(struct device *con,
>                 device_links_write_unlock();
>         }
>
> -       sup_dev = get_dev_from_fwnode(sup_handle);
> +       if (sup_handle->flags & FWNODE_FLAG_NOT_DEVICE)
> +               sup_dev = fwnode_get_next_parent_dev(sup_handle);
> +       else
> +               sup_dev = get_dev_from_fwnode(sup_handle);
> +
>         if (sup_dev) {
>                 /*
>                  * If it's one of those drivers that don't actually bind to
>
> -Saravana