| Message ID | 20230302023509.319903-1-saravanak@google.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v1] serdev: Set fwnode for serdev devices | expand |
Hi Saravana, Am 02.03.23 um 03:35 schrieb Saravana Kannan: > This allow fw_devlink to do dependency tracking for serdev devices. > > Reported-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/03b70a8a-0591-f28b-a567-9d2f736f17e5@gmail.com/ > Cc: Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@i2se.com> > Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com> since this fixes an issue on Raspberry Pi 4, shouldn't this be mentioned in the commit message and providing a Fixes tag? Thanks Stefan > --- > Florian, > > Can you give it a shot and a tested-by please? > > -Saravana > > drivers/tty/serdev/core.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/tty/serdev/core.c b/drivers/tty/serdev/core.c > index aa80de3a8194..678014253b7b 100644 > --- a/drivers/tty/serdev/core.c > +++ b/drivers/tty/serdev/core.c > @@ -534,7 +534,7 @@ static int of_serdev_register_devices(struct serdev_controller *ctrl) > if (!serdev) > continue; > > - serdev->dev.of_node = node; > + device_set_node(&serdev->dev, of_fwnode_handle(node)); > > err = serdev_device_add(serdev); > if (err) {
On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 9:01 AM Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@i2se.com> wrote: > > Hi Saravana, > > Am 02.03.23 um 03:35 schrieb Saravana Kannan: > > This allow fw_devlink to do dependency tracking for serdev devices. > > > > Reported-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/03b70a8a-0591-f28b-a567-9d2f736f17e5@gmail.com/ > > Cc: Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@i2se.com> > > Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com> > > since this fixes an issue on Raspberry Pi 4, shouldn't this be mentioned > in the commit message and providing a Fixes tag? So RPi 4 was never creating a device links between serdev devices and their consumers. The error message was just a new one I added and we are noticing and catching the fact that serdev wasn't setting fwnode for a device. I'm also not sure if I can say this commit "Fixes" an issue in serdev core because when serdev core was written, fw_devlink wasn't a thing. Once I add Fixes, people will start pulling this into stable branches/other trees where I don't think this should be pulled into older stable branches. -Saravana > > Thanks > Stefan > > > --- > > Florian, > > > > Can you give it a shot and a tested-by please? > > > > -Saravana > > > > drivers/tty/serdev/core.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/tty/serdev/core.c b/drivers/tty/serdev/core.c > > index aa80de3a8194..678014253b7b 100644 > > --- a/drivers/tty/serdev/core.c > > +++ b/drivers/tty/serdev/core.c > > @@ -534,7 +534,7 @@ static int of_serdev_register_devices(struct serdev_controller *ctrl) > > if (!serdev) > > continue; > > > > - serdev->dev.of_node = node; > > + device_set_node(&serdev->dev, of_fwnode_handle(node)); > > > > err = serdev_device_add(serdev); > > if (err) {
On 3/2/2023 9:20 AM, Saravana Kannan wrote: > On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 9:01 AM Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@i2se.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Saravana, >> >> Am 02.03.23 um 03:35 schrieb Saravana Kannan: >>> This allow fw_devlink to do dependency tracking for serdev devices. >>> >>> Reported-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> >>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/03b70a8a-0591-f28b-a567-9d2f736f17e5@gmail.com/ >>> Cc: Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@i2se.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com> >> >> since this fixes an issue on Raspberry Pi 4, shouldn't this be mentioned >> in the commit message and providing a Fixes tag? > > So RPi 4 was never creating a device links between serdev devices and > their consumers. The error message was just a new one I added and we > are noticing and catching the fact that serdev wasn't setting fwnode > for a device. > > I'm also not sure if I can say this commit "Fixes" an issue in serdev > core because when serdev core was written, fw_devlink wasn't a thing. > Once I add Fixes, people will start pulling this into stable > branches/other trees where I don't think this should be pulled into > older stable branches. That is kind of the point of Fixes: tag, is not it? It is appropriate to list a commit that is not specific to serdev, but maybe a particular point into the fw_devlink history. Given this did not appear to have a functional impact, we could go without one.
On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 9:51 AM Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 3/2/2023 9:20 AM, Saravana Kannan wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 9:01 AM Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@i2se.com> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Saravana, > >> > >> Am 02.03.23 um 03:35 schrieb Saravana Kannan: > >>> This allow fw_devlink to do dependency tracking for serdev devices. > >>> > >>> Reported-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> > >>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/03b70a8a-0591-f28b-a567-9d2f736f17e5@gmail.com/ > >>> Cc: Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@i2se.com> > >>> Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com> > >> > >> since this fixes an issue on Raspberry Pi 4, shouldn't this be mentioned > >> in the commit message and providing a Fixes tag? > > > > So RPi 4 was never creating a device links between serdev devices and > > their consumers. The error message was just a new one I added and we > > are noticing and catching the fact that serdev wasn't setting fwnode > > for a device. > > > > I'm also not sure if I can say this commit "Fixes" an issue in serdev > > core because when serdev core was written, fw_devlink wasn't a thing. > > Once I add Fixes, people will start pulling this into stable > > branches/other trees where I don't think this should be pulled into > > older stable branches. > > That is kind of the point of Fixes: tag, is not it? It is appropriate to > list a commit that is not specific to serdev, but maybe a particular > point into the fw_devlink history. I don't want to pick an arbitrary point in fw_devlink as I don't want people picking this up with some old version of fw_devlink and having to support it there. > Given this did not appear to have a > functional impact, we could go without one. This is my take too. Greg/Rob, If you really want a Fixes here, can you please just add it instead of a v2 patch just for that? You can use this commit: 3fb16866b51d driver core: fw_devlink: Make cycle detection more robust -Saravana
Hi, Am 02.03.23 um 18:51 schrieb Florian Fainelli: > > > On 3/2/2023 9:20 AM, Saravana Kannan wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 9:01 AM Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@i2se.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Saravana, >>> >>> Am 02.03.23 um 03:35 schrieb Saravana Kannan: >>>> This allow fw_devlink to do dependency tracking for serdev devices. >>>> >>>> Reported-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> >>>> Link: >>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/03b70a8a-0591-f28b-a567-9d2f736f17e5@gmail.com/ >>>> Cc: Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@i2se.com> >>>> Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com> >>> >>> since this fixes an issue on Raspberry Pi 4, shouldn't this be >>> mentioned >>> in the commit message and providing a Fixes tag? >> >> So RPi 4 was never creating a device links between serdev devices and >> their consumers. The error message was just a new one I added and we >> are noticing and catching the fact that serdev wasn't setting fwnode >> for a device. >> >> I'm also not sure if I can say this commit "Fixes" an issue in serdev >> core because when serdev core was written, fw_devlink wasn't a thing. >> Once I add Fixes, people will start pulling this into stable >> branches/other trees where I don't think this should be pulled into >> older stable branches. > > That is kind of the point of Fixes: tag, is not it? It is appropriate > to list a commit that is not specific to serdev, but maybe a > particular point into the fw_devlink history. Given this did not > appear to have a functional impact, we could go without one. i was under the impression that this issue breaks at least Bluetooth on Raspberry Pi 4 because the driver is never probed. I cannot see the success output in Florian's trace. Something like this: [ 7.124879] hci_uart_bcm serial0-0: supply vbat not found, using dummy regulator [ 7.131743] hci_uart_bcm serial0-0: supply vddio not found, using dummy regulator ... [ 7.517249] Bluetooth: hci0: BCM: chip id 107 [ 7.517499] Bluetooth: hci0: BCM: features 0x2f [ 7.519757] Bluetooth: hci0: BCM4345C0 [ 7.519768] Bluetooth: hci0: BCM4345C0 (003.001.025) build 0000 [ 7.539495] Bluetooth: hci0: BCM4345C0 'brcm/BCM4345C0.hcd' Patch ... [ 8.348831] Bluetooth: hci0: BCM43455 37.4MHz Raspberry Pi 3+ [ 8.348845] Bluetooth: hci0: BCM4345C0 (003.001.025) build 0342 I just want to make sure that 6.2 doesn't have a regression.
On 3/3/23 03:57, Stefan Wahren wrote: > Hi, > > Am 02.03.23 um 18:51 schrieb Florian Fainelli: >> >> >> On 3/2/2023 9:20 AM, Saravana Kannan wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 9:01 AM Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@i2se.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Saravana, >>>> >>>> Am 02.03.23 um 03:35 schrieb Saravana Kannan: >>>>> This allow fw_devlink to do dependency tracking for serdev devices. >>>>> >>>>> Reported-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> >>>>> Link: >>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/03b70a8a-0591-f28b-a567-9d2f736f17e5@gmail.com/ >>>>> Cc: Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@i2se.com> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com> >>>> >>>> since this fixes an issue on Raspberry Pi 4, shouldn't this be >>>> mentioned >>>> in the commit message and providing a Fixes tag? >>> >>> So RPi 4 was never creating a device links between serdev devices and >>> their consumers. The error message was just a new one I added and we >>> are noticing and catching the fact that serdev wasn't setting fwnode >>> for a device. >>> >>> I'm also not sure if I can say this commit "Fixes" an issue in serdev >>> core because when serdev core was written, fw_devlink wasn't a thing. >>> Once I add Fixes, people will start pulling this into stable >>> branches/other trees where I don't think this should be pulled into >>> older stable branches. >> >> That is kind of the point of Fixes: tag, is not it? It is appropriate >> to list a commit that is not specific to serdev, but maybe a >> particular point into the fw_devlink history. Given this did not >> appear to have a functional impact, we could go without one. > > i was under the impression that this issue breaks at least Bluetooth on > Raspberry Pi 4 because the driver is never probed. I cannot see the > success output in Florian's trace. Something like this: > > [ 7.124879] hci_uart_bcm serial0-0: supply vbat not found, using > dummy regulator > [ 7.131743] hci_uart_bcm serial0-0: supply vddio not found, using > dummy regulator > ... > [ 7.517249] Bluetooth: hci0: BCM: chip id 107 > [ 7.517499] Bluetooth: hci0: BCM: features 0x2f > [ 7.519757] Bluetooth: hci0: BCM4345C0 > [ 7.519768] Bluetooth: hci0: BCM4345C0 (003.001.025) build 0000 > [ 7.539495] Bluetooth: hci0: BCM4345C0 'brcm/BCM4345C0.hcd' Patch > ... > [ 8.348831] Bluetooth: hci0: BCM43455 37.4MHz Raspberry Pi 3+ > [ 8.348845] Bluetooth: hci0: BCM4345C0 (003.001.025) build 0342 > > I just want to make sure that 6.2 doesn't have a regression. My configuration uses hci_uart as a module, and it would always load fine, but I suppose I can make sure that even built-in this works properly. Give me a day or two to test that.
On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 9:22 AM Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 3/3/23 03:57, Stefan Wahren wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Am 02.03.23 um 18:51 schrieb Florian Fainelli: > >> > >> > >> On 3/2/2023 9:20 AM, Saravana Kannan wrote: > >>> On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 9:01 AM Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@i2se.com> > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Saravana, > >>>> > >>>> Am 02.03.23 um 03:35 schrieb Saravana Kannan: > >>>>> This allow fw_devlink to do dependency tracking for serdev devices. > >>>>> > >>>>> Reported-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> > >>>>> Link: > >>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/03b70a8a-0591-f28b-a567-9d2f736f17e5@gmail.com/ > >>>>> Cc: Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@i2se.com> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com> > >>>> > >>>> since this fixes an issue on Raspberry Pi 4, shouldn't this be > >>>> mentioned > >>>> in the commit message and providing a Fixes tag? > >>> > >>> So RPi 4 was never creating a device links between serdev devices and > >>> their consumers. The error message was just a new one I added and we > >>> are noticing and catching the fact that serdev wasn't setting fwnode > >>> for a device. > >>> > >>> I'm also not sure if I can say this commit "Fixes" an issue in serdev > >>> core because when serdev core was written, fw_devlink wasn't a thing. > >>> Once I add Fixes, people will start pulling this into stable > >>> branches/other trees where I don't think this should be pulled into > >>> older stable branches. > >> > >> That is kind of the point of Fixes: tag, is not it? It is appropriate > >> to list a commit that is not specific to serdev, but maybe a > >> particular point into the fw_devlink history. Given this did not > >> appear to have a functional impact, we could go without one. > > > > i was under the impression that this issue breaks at least Bluetooth on > > Raspberry Pi 4 because the driver is never probed. I cannot see the > > success output in Florian's trace. Something like this: > > > > [ 7.124879] hci_uart_bcm serial0-0: supply vbat not found, using > > dummy regulator > > [ 7.131743] hci_uart_bcm serial0-0: supply vddio not found, using > > dummy regulator > > ... > > [ 7.517249] Bluetooth: hci0: BCM: chip id 107 > > [ 7.517499] Bluetooth: hci0: BCM: features 0x2f > > [ 7.519757] Bluetooth: hci0: BCM4345C0 > > [ 7.519768] Bluetooth: hci0: BCM4345C0 (003.001.025) build 0000 > > [ 7.539495] Bluetooth: hci0: BCM4345C0 'brcm/BCM4345C0.hcd' Patch > > ... > > [ 8.348831] Bluetooth: hci0: BCM43455 37.4MHz Raspberry Pi 3+ > > [ 8.348845] Bluetooth: hci0: BCM4345C0 (003.001.025) build 0342 > > > > I just want to make sure that 6.2 doesn't have a regression. > > My configuration uses hci_uart as a module, and it would always load > fine, but I suppose I can make sure that even built-in this works > properly. Give me a day or two to test that. Thanks Stefan and Florian! I'll wait to see the results. But based on my mental model of fw_devlink I don't expect BT to be broken without this patch. If a device doesn't have fwnode set, it's effectively invisible to fw_devlink. That could only affect consumers of the device and not the device itself. -Saravana
Hi, Am 03.03.23 um 18:22 schrieb Florian Fainelli: > On 3/3/23 03:57, Stefan Wahren wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Am 02.03.23 um 18:51 schrieb Florian Fainelli: >>> >>> >>> On 3/2/2023 9:20 AM, Saravana Kannan wrote: >>>> On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 9:01 AM Stefan Wahren >>>> <stefan.wahren@i2se.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Saravana, >>>>> >>>>> Am 02.03.23 um 03:35 schrieb Saravana Kannan: >>>>>> This allow fw_devlink to do dependency tracking for serdev devices. >>>>>> >>>>>> Reported-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> >>>>>> Link: >>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/03b70a8a-0591-f28b-a567-9d2f736f17e5@gmail.com/ >>>>>> Cc: Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@i2se.com> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com> >>>>> >>>>> since this fixes an issue on Raspberry Pi 4, shouldn't this be >>>>> mentioned >>>>> in the commit message and providing a Fixes tag? >>>> >>>> So RPi 4 was never creating a device links between serdev devices and >>>> their consumers. The error message was just a new one I added and we >>>> are noticing and catching the fact that serdev wasn't setting fwnode >>>> for a device. >>>> >>>> I'm also not sure if I can say this commit "Fixes" an issue in serdev >>>> core because when serdev core was written, fw_devlink wasn't a thing. >>>> Once I add Fixes, people will start pulling this into stable >>>> branches/other trees where I don't think this should be pulled into >>>> older stable branches. >>> >>> That is kind of the point of Fixes: tag, is not it? It is >>> appropriate to list a commit that is not specific to serdev, but >>> maybe a particular point into the fw_devlink history. Given this did >>> not appear to have a functional impact, we could go without one. >> >> i was under the impression that this issue breaks at least Bluetooth >> on Raspberry Pi 4 because the driver is never probed. I cannot see >> the success output in Florian's trace. Something like this: >> >> [ 7.124879] hci_uart_bcm serial0-0: supply vbat not found, using >> dummy regulator >> [ 7.131743] hci_uart_bcm serial0-0: supply vddio not found, using >> dummy regulator >> ... >> [ 7.517249] Bluetooth: hci0: BCM: chip id 107 >> [ 7.517499] Bluetooth: hci0: BCM: features 0x2f >> [ 7.519757] Bluetooth: hci0: BCM4345C0 >> [ 7.519768] Bluetooth: hci0: BCM4345C0 (003.001.025) build 0000 >> [ 7.539495] Bluetooth: hci0: BCM4345C0 'brcm/BCM4345C0.hcd' Patch >> ... >> [ 8.348831] Bluetooth: hci0: BCM43455 37.4MHz Raspberry Pi 3+ >> [ 8.348845] Bluetooth: hci0: BCM4345C0 (003.001.025) build 0342 >> >> I just want to make sure that 6.2 doesn't have a regression. > > My configuration uses hci_uart as a module, and it would always load > fine, but I suppose I can make sure that even built-in this works > properly. Give me a day or two to test that. okay, this is fine. From my point of view this is not necessary to test built-in. I tested latest mainline with Raspberry Pi 4 (multi_v7_defconfig + ARM_LPAE) and there is no regression: Tested-by: Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@i2se.com> Thanks
On 3/5/2023 7:00 AM, Stefan Wahren wrote: > Hi, > > Am 03.03.23 um 18:22 schrieb Florian Fainelli: >> On 3/3/23 03:57, Stefan Wahren wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Am 02.03.23 um 18:51 schrieb Florian Fainelli: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 3/2/2023 9:20 AM, Saravana Kannan wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 9:01 AM Stefan Wahren >>>>> <stefan.wahren@i2se.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Saravana, >>>>>> >>>>>> Am 02.03.23 um 03:35 schrieb Saravana Kannan: >>>>>>> This allow fw_devlink to do dependency tracking for serdev devices. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Reported-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> >>>>>>> Link: >>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/03b70a8a-0591-f28b-a567-9d2f736f17e5@gmail.com/ >>>>>>> Cc: Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@i2se.com> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com> >>>>>> >>>>>> since this fixes an issue on Raspberry Pi 4, shouldn't this be >>>>>> mentioned >>>>>> in the commit message and providing a Fixes tag? >>>>> >>>>> So RPi 4 was never creating a device links between serdev devices and >>>>> their consumers. The error message was just a new one I added and we >>>>> are noticing and catching the fact that serdev wasn't setting fwnode >>>>> for a device. >>>>> >>>>> I'm also not sure if I can say this commit "Fixes" an issue in serdev >>>>> core because when serdev core was written, fw_devlink wasn't a thing. >>>>> Once I add Fixes, people will start pulling this into stable >>>>> branches/other trees where I don't think this should be pulled into >>>>> older stable branches. >>>> >>>> That is kind of the point of Fixes: tag, is not it? It is >>>> appropriate to list a commit that is not specific to serdev, but >>>> maybe a particular point into the fw_devlink history. Given this did >>>> not appear to have a functional impact, we could go without one. >>> >>> i was under the impression that this issue breaks at least Bluetooth >>> on Raspberry Pi 4 because the driver is never probed. I cannot see >>> the success output in Florian's trace. Something like this: >>> >>> [ 7.124879] hci_uart_bcm serial0-0: supply vbat not found, using >>> dummy regulator >>> [ 7.131743] hci_uart_bcm serial0-0: supply vddio not found, using >>> dummy regulator >>> ... >>> [ 7.517249] Bluetooth: hci0: BCM: chip id 107 >>> [ 7.517499] Bluetooth: hci0: BCM: features 0x2f >>> [ 7.519757] Bluetooth: hci0: BCM4345C0 >>> [ 7.519768] Bluetooth: hci0: BCM4345C0 (003.001.025) build 0000 >>> [ 7.539495] Bluetooth: hci0: BCM4345C0 'brcm/BCM4345C0.hcd' Patch >>> ... >>> [ 8.348831] Bluetooth: hci0: BCM43455 37.4MHz Raspberry Pi 3+ >>> [ 8.348845] Bluetooth: hci0: BCM4345C0 (003.001.025) build 0342 >>> >>> I just want to make sure that 6.2 doesn't have a regression. >> >> My configuration uses hci_uart as a module, and it would always load >> fine, but I suppose I can make sure that even built-in this works >> properly. Give me a day or two to test that. > > okay, this is fine. From my point of view this is not necessary to test > built-in. > > I tested latest mainline with Raspberry Pi 4 (multi_v7_defconfig + > ARM_LPAE) and there is no regression: > > Tested-by: Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@i2se.com> Tested with making the BT drivers built-in with and without the patch and it still worked OK in both cases.
On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 10:07 AM Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 9:51 AM Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 3/2/2023 9:20 AM, Saravana Kannan wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 9:01 AM Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@i2se.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi Saravana, > > >> > > >> Am 02.03.23 um 03:35 schrieb Saravana Kannan: > > >>> This allow fw_devlink to do dependency tracking for serdev devices. > > >>> > > >>> Reported-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> > > >>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/03b70a8a-0591-f28b-a567-9d2f736f17e5@gmail.com/ > > >>> Cc: Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@i2se.com> > > >>> Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com> > > >> > > >> since this fixes an issue on Raspberry Pi 4, shouldn't this be mentioned > > >> in the commit message and providing a Fixes tag? > > > > > > So RPi 4 was never creating a device links between serdev devices and > > > their consumers. The error message was just a new one I added and we > > > are noticing and catching the fact that serdev wasn't setting fwnode > > > for a device. > > > > > > I'm also not sure if I can say this commit "Fixes" an issue in serdev > > > core because when serdev core was written, fw_devlink wasn't a thing. > > > Once I add Fixes, people will start pulling this into stable > > > branches/other trees where I don't think this should be pulled into > > > older stable branches. > > > > That is kind of the point of Fixes: tag, is not it? It is appropriate to > > list a commit that is not specific to serdev, but maybe a particular > > point into the fw_devlink history. > > I don't want to pick an arbitrary point in fw_devlink as I don't want > people picking this up with some old version of fw_devlink and having > to support it there. > > > Given this did not appear to have a > > functional impact, we could go without one. > > This is my take too. > > Greg/Rob, > > If you really want a Fixes here, can you please just add it instead of > a v2 patch just for that? You can use this commit: > 3fb16866b51d driver core: fw_devlink: Make cycle detection more robust Rob/Greg, Can you pick this up for 6.3-rc2 please? -Saravana
On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 08:47:48PM -0800, Saravana Kannan wrote: > On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 10:07 AM Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 9:51 AM Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 3/2/2023 9:20 AM, Saravana Kannan wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 9:01 AM Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@i2se.com> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Hi Saravana, > > > >> > > > >> Am 02.03.23 um 03:35 schrieb Saravana Kannan: > > > >>> This allow fw_devlink to do dependency tracking for serdev devices. > > > >>> > > > >>> Reported-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> > > > >>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/03b70a8a-0591-f28b-a567-9d2f736f17e5@gmail.com/ > > > >>> Cc: Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@i2se.com> > > > >>> Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com> > > > >> > > > >> since this fixes an issue on Raspberry Pi 4, shouldn't this be mentioned > > > >> in the commit message and providing a Fixes tag? > > > > > > > > So RPi 4 was never creating a device links between serdev devices and > > > > their consumers. The error message was just a new one I added and we > > > > are noticing and catching the fact that serdev wasn't setting fwnode > > > > for a device. > > > > > > > > I'm also not sure if I can say this commit "Fixes" an issue in serdev > > > > core because when serdev core was written, fw_devlink wasn't a thing. > > > > Once I add Fixes, people will start pulling this into stable > > > > branches/other trees where I don't think this should be pulled into > > > > older stable branches. > > > > > > That is kind of the point of Fixes: tag, is not it? It is appropriate to > > > list a commit that is not specific to serdev, but maybe a particular > > > point into the fw_devlink history. > > > > I don't want to pick an arbitrary point in fw_devlink as I don't want > > people picking this up with some old version of fw_devlink and having > > to support it there. > > > > > Given this did not appear to have a > > > functional impact, we could go without one. > > > > This is my take too. > > > > Greg/Rob, > > > > If you really want a Fixes here, can you please just add it instead of > > a v2 patch just for that? You can use this commit: > > 3fb16866b51d driver core: fw_devlink: Make cycle detection more robust > > Rob/Greg, > > Can you pick this up for 6.3-rc2 please? Will do, my queue is huge at the moment, it might be -rc3...
diff --git a/drivers/tty/serdev/core.c b/drivers/tty/serdev/core.c index aa80de3a8194..678014253b7b 100644 --- a/drivers/tty/serdev/core.c +++ b/drivers/tty/serdev/core.c @@ -534,7 +534,7 @@ static int of_serdev_register_devices(struct serdev_controller *ctrl) if (!serdev) continue; - serdev->dev.of_node = node; + device_set_node(&serdev->dev, of_fwnode_handle(node)); err = serdev_device_add(serdev); if (err) {
This allow fw_devlink to do dependency tracking for serdev devices. Reported-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/03b70a8a-0591-f28b-a567-9d2f736f17e5@gmail.com/ Cc: Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@i2se.com> Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com> --- Florian, Can you give it a shot and a tested-by please? -Saravana drivers/tty/serdev/core.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)