The GPIO specified in the DTS file references the pinctrl, which is
specified after the GPIO. If the GPIO is initialised before pinctrl,
an error message for the -EPROBE_DEFER ends up in the kernel log. Even
though the probe will succeed when the driver is re-initialised, the
error can be scary to end users. To fix this, change the time the
pinctrl is probed, so that it is always before the GPIO driver.
Signed-off-by: Mark Tomlinson <[email protected]>
---
drivers/pinctrl/bcm/pinctrl-nsp-mux.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/bcm/pinctrl-nsp-mux.c b/drivers/pinctrl/bcm/pinctrl-nsp-mux.c
index f1d60a708815..7586949f83ec 100644
--- a/drivers/pinctrl/bcm/pinctrl-nsp-mux.c
+++ b/drivers/pinctrl/bcm/pinctrl-nsp-mux.c
@@ -639,4 +639,4 @@ static int __init nsp_pinmux_init(void)
{
return platform_driver_register(&nsp_pinmux_driver);
}
-arch_initcall(nsp_pinmux_init);
+postcore_initcall(nsp_pinmux_init);
--
2.27.0
Hi Mark,
On 6/30/2020 2:29 PM, Mark Tomlinson wrote:
> The GPIO specified in the DTS file references the pinctrl, which is
> specified after the GPIO. If the GPIO is initialised before pinctrl,
May I know which GPIO driver you are referring to on NSP? Both the iProc
GPIO driver and the NSP GPIO driver are initialized at the level of
'arch_initcall_sync', which is supposed to be after 'arch_initcall' used
here in the pinmux driver
> an error message for the -EPROBE_DEFER ends up in the kernel log. Even
> though the probe will succeed when the driver is re-initialised, the
> error can be scary to end users. To fix this, change the time the
Scary to end users? I don't know about that. -EPROBE_DEFER was
introduced exactly for this purpose. Perhaps users need to learn what
-EPROBE_DEFER errno means?
> pinctrl is probed, so that it is always before the GPIO driver.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mark Tomlinson <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/pinctrl/bcm/pinctrl-nsp-mux.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/bcm/pinctrl-nsp-mux.c b/drivers/pinctrl/bcm/pinctrl-nsp-mux.c
> index f1d60a708815..7586949f83ec 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/bcm/pinctrl-nsp-mux.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/bcm/pinctrl-nsp-mux.c
> @@ -639,4 +639,4 @@ static int __init nsp_pinmux_init(void)
> {
> return platform_driver_register(&nsp_pinmux_driver);
> }
> -arch_initcall(nsp_pinmux_init);
> +postcore_initcall(nsp_pinmux_init);
>
On Tue, 2020-06-30 at 15:08 -0700, Ray Jui wrote:
> May I know which GPIO driver you are referring to on NSP? Both the iProc
> GPIO driver and the NSP GPIO driver are initialized at the level of
> 'arch_initcall_sync', which is supposed to be after 'arch_initcall' used
> here in the pinmux driver
Sorry, it looks like I made a mistake in my testing (or I was lucky),
and this patch doesn't fix the issue. What is happening is:
1) nsp-pinmux driver is registered (arch_initcall).
2) nsp-gpio-a driver is registered (arch_initcall_sync).
3) of_platform_default_populate_init() is called (also at level
arch_initcall_sync), which scans the device tree, adds the nsp-gpio-a
device, runs its probe, and this returns -EPROBE_DEFER with the error
message.
4) Only now nsp-pinmux device is probed.
Changing the 'arch_initcall_sync' to 'device_initcall' in nsp-gpio-a
ensures that the pinmux is probed first since
of_platform_default_populate_init() will be called between the two
register calls, and the error goes away. Is this change acceptable as a
solution?
> > though the probe will succeed when the driver is re-initialised, the
> > error can be scary to end users. To fix this, change the time the
>
> Scary to end users? I don't know about that. -EPROBE_DEFER was
> introduced exactly for this purpose. Perhaps users need to learn what
> -EPROBE_DEFER errno means?
The actual error message in syslog is:
kern.err kernel: gpiochip_add_data_with_key: GPIOs 480..511
(18000020.gpio) failed to register, -517
So an end user sees "err" and "failed", and doesn't know what "-517"
means.
On 6/30/2020 7:23 PM, Mark Tomlinson wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-06-30 at 15:08 -0700, Ray Jui wrote:
>> May I know which GPIO driver you are referring to on NSP? Both the iProc
>> GPIO driver and the NSP GPIO driver are initialized at the level of
>> 'arch_initcall_sync', which is supposed to be after 'arch_initcall' used
>> here in the pinmux driver
>
> Sorry, it looks like I made a mistake in my testing (or I was lucky),
> and this patch doesn't fix the issue. What is happening is:
> 1) nsp-pinmux driver is registered (arch_initcall).
> 2) nsp-gpio-a driver is registered (arch_initcall_sync).
> 3) of_platform_default_populate_init() is called (also at level
> arch_initcall_sync), which scans the device tree, adds the nsp-gpio-a
> device, runs its probe, and this returns -EPROBE_DEFER with the error
> message.
> 4) Only now nsp-pinmux device is probed.
>
> Changing the 'arch_initcall_sync' to 'device_initcall' in nsp-gpio-a
> ensures that the pinmux is probed first since
> of_platform_default_populate_init() will be called between the two
> register calls, and the error goes away. Is this change acceptable as a
> solution?
If probe deferral did not work, certainly but it sounds like this is
being done just for the sake of eliminating a round of probe deferral,
is there a functional problem this is fixing?
>
>>> though the probe will succeed when the driver is re-initialised, the
>>> error can be scary to end users. To fix this, change the time the
>>
>> Scary to end users? I don't know about that. -EPROBE_DEFER was
>> introduced exactly for this purpose. Perhaps users need to learn what
>> -EPROBE_DEFER errno means?
>
> The actual error message in syslog is:
>
> kern.err kernel: gpiochip_add_data_with_key: GPIOs 480..511
> (18000020.gpio) failed to register, -517
>
> So an end user sees "err" and "failed", and doesn't know what "-517"
> means.
How about this instead:
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
index 4fa075d49fbc..10d9d0c17c9e 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
@@ -1818,9 +1818,10 @@ int gpiochip_add_data_with_key(struct gpio_chip
*gc, void *data,
ida_simple_remove(&gpio_ida, gdev->id);
err_free_gdev:
/* failures here can mean systems won't boot... */
- pr_err("%s: GPIOs %d..%d (%s) failed to register, %d\n", __func__,
- gdev->base, gdev->base + gdev->ngpio - 1,
- gc->label ? : "generic", ret);
+ if (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER)
+ pr_err("%s: GPIOs %d..%d (%s) failed to register, %d\n",
+ __func__, gdev->base, gdev->base + gdev->ngpio - 1,
+ gc->label ? : "generic", ret);
kfree(gdev);
return ret;
}
--
Florian
On Tue, 2020-06-30 at 20:14 -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> Sorry, it looks like I made a mistake in my testing (or I was lucky),
> > and this patch doesn't fix the issue. What is happening is:
> > 1) nsp-pinmux driver is registered (arch_initcall).
> > 2) nsp-gpio-a driver is registered (arch_initcall_sync).
> > 3) of_platform_default_populate_init() is called (also at level
> > arch_initcall_sync), which scans the device tree, adds the nsp-gpio-a
> > device, runs its probe, and this returns -EPROBE_DEFER with the error
> > message.
> > 4) Only now nsp-pinmux device is probed.
> >
> > Changing the 'arch_initcall_sync' to 'device_initcall' in nsp-gpio-a
> > ensures that the pinmux is probed first since
> > of_platform_default_populate_init() will be called between the two
> > register calls, and the error goes away. Is this change acceptable as a
> > solution?
>
> If probe deferral did not work, certainly but it sounds like this is
> being done just for the sake of eliminating a round of probe deferral,
> is there a functional problem this is fixing?
No, I'm just trying to prevent an "error" message appearing in syslog.
> > The actual error message in syslog is:
> >
> > kern.err kernel: gpiochip_add_data_with_key: GPIOs 480..511
> > (18000020.gpio) failed to register, -517
> >
> > So an end user sees "err" and "failed", and doesn't know what "-517"
> > means.
>
> How about this instead:
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> index 4fa075d49fbc..10d9d0c17c9e 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> @@ -1818,9 +1818,10 @@ int gpiochip_add_data_with_key(struct gpio_chip
> *gc, void *data,
> ida_simple_remove(&gpio_ida, gdev->id);
> err_free_gdev:
> /* failures here can mean systems won't boot... */
> - pr_err("%s: GPIOs %d..%d (%s) failed to register, %d\n", __func__,
> - gdev->base, gdev->base + gdev->ngpio - 1,
> - gc->label ? : "generic", ret);
> + if (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER)
> + pr_err("%s: GPIOs %d..%d (%s) failed to register, %d\n",
> + __func__, gdev->base, gdev->base + gdev->ngpio - 1,
> + gc->label ? : "generic", ret);
> kfree(gdev);
> return ret;
> }
>
That was one of my thoughts too. I found someone had tried that
earlier, but it was rejected:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-gpio/patch/[email protected]/
On 6/30/2020 9:37 PM, Mark Tomlinson wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-06-30 at 20:14 -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> Sorry, it looks like I made a mistake in my testing (or I was lucky),
>>> and this patch doesn't fix the issue. What is happening is:
>>> 1) nsp-pinmux driver is registered (arch_initcall).
>>> 2) nsp-gpio-a driver is registered (arch_initcall_sync).
>>> 3) of_platform_default_populate_init() is called (also at level
>>> arch_initcall_sync), which scans the device tree, adds the nsp-gpio-a
>>> device, runs its probe, and this returns -EPROBE_DEFER with the error
>>> message.
>>> 4) Only now nsp-pinmux device is probed.
>>>
>>> Changing the 'arch_initcall_sync' to 'device_initcall' in nsp-gpio-a
>>> ensures that the pinmux is probed first since
>>> of_platform_default_populate_init() will be called between the two
>>> register calls, and the error goes away. Is this change acceptable as a
>>> solution?
>>
>> If probe deferral did not work, certainly but it sounds like this is
>> being done just for the sake of eliminating a round of probe deferral,
>> is there a functional problem this is fixing?
>
> No, I'm just trying to prevent an "error" message appearing in syslog.
>
>>> The actual error message in syslog is:
>>>
>>> kern.err kernel: gpiochip_add_data_with_key: GPIOs 480..511
>>> (18000020.gpio) failed to register, -517
>>>
>>> So an end user sees "err" and "failed", and doesn't know what "-517"
>>> means.
>>
>> How about this instead:
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
>> index 4fa075d49fbc..10d9d0c17c9e 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
>> @@ -1818,9 +1818,10 @@ int gpiochip_add_data_with_key(struct gpio_chip
>> *gc, void *data,
>> ida_simple_remove(&gpio_ida, gdev->id);
>> err_free_gdev:
>> /* failures here can mean systems won't boot... */
>> - pr_err("%s: GPIOs %d..%d (%s) failed to register, %d\n", __func__,
>> - gdev->base, gdev->base + gdev->ngpio - 1,
>> - gc->label ? : "generic", ret);
>> + if (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER)
>> + pr_err("%s: GPIOs %d..%d (%s) failed to register, %d\n",
>> + __func__, gdev->base, gdev->base + gdev->ngpio - 1,
>> + gc->label ? : "generic", ret);
>> kfree(gdev);
>> return ret;
>> }
>>
> That was one of my thoughts too. I found someone had tried that
> earlier, but it was rejected:
>
>
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-gpio/patch/[email protected]/
clk or reset APIs do not complain loudly on EPROBE_DEFER, it seems to me
that GPIO should follow here. Also, it does look like Linus was in
agreement in the end, not sure why it was not applied though.
--
Florian
On 6/30/2020 9:44 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>
>
> On 6/30/2020 9:37 PM, Mark Tomlinson wrote:
>> On Tue, 2020-06-30 at 20:14 -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>> Sorry, it looks like I made a mistake in my testing (or I was lucky),
>>>> and this patch doesn't fix the issue. What is happening is:
>>>> 1) nsp-pinmux driver is registered (arch_initcall).
>>>> 2) nsp-gpio-a driver is registered (arch_initcall_sync).
>>>> 3) of_platform_default_populate_init() is called (also at level
>>>> arch_initcall_sync), which scans the device tree, adds the nsp-gpio-a
>>>> device, runs its probe, and this returns -EPROBE_DEFER with the error
>>>> message.
>>>> 4) Only now nsp-pinmux device is probed.
>>>>
>>>> Changing the 'arch_initcall_sync' to 'device_initcall' in nsp-gpio-a
>>>> ensures that the pinmux is probed first since
>>>> of_platform_default_populate_init() will be called between the two
>>>> register calls, and the error goes away. Is this change acceptable as a
>>>> solution?
>>>
>>> If probe deferral did not work, certainly but it sounds like this is
>>> being done just for the sake of eliminating a round of probe deferral,
>>> is there a functional problem this is fixing?
>>
>> No, I'm just trying to prevent an "error" message appearing in syslog.
>>
>>>> The actual error message in syslog is:
>>>>
>>>> kern.err kernel: gpiochip_add_data_with_key: GPIOs 480..511
>>>> (18000020.gpio) failed to register, -517
>>>>
>>>> So an end user sees "err" and "failed", and doesn't know what "-517"
>>>> means.
>>>
>>> How about this instead:
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
>>> index 4fa075d49fbc..10d9d0c17c9e 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
>>> @@ -1818,9 +1818,10 @@ int gpiochip_add_data_with_key(struct gpio_chip
>>> *gc, void *data,
>>> ida_simple_remove(&gpio_ida, gdev->id);
>>> err_free_gdev:
>>> /* failures here can mean systems won't boot... */
>>> - pr_err("%s: GPIOs %d..%d (%s) failed to register, %d\n", __func__,
>>> - gdev->base, gdev->base + gdev->ngpio - 1,
>>> - gc->label ? : "generic", ret);
>>> + if (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER)
>>> + pr_err("%s: GPIOs %d..%d (%s) failed to register, %d\n",
>>> + __func__, gdev->base, gdev->base + gdev->ngpio - 1,
>>> + gc->label ? : "generic", ret);
>>> kfree(gdev);
>>> return ret;
>>> }
>>>
>> That was one of my thoughts too. I found someone had tried that
>> earlier, but it was rejected:
>>
>>
>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-gpio/patch/[email protected]/
>
> clk or reset APIs do not complain loudly on EPROBE_DEFER, it seems to me
> that GPIO should follow here. Also, it does look like Linus was in
> agreement in the end, not sure why it was not applied though.
>
I think either we silently drop this or we explicitly make it obvious
that it failed due to EPROBE_DEFER. Both seem acceptable to me.
Thanks!
Ray
On 7/11/2020 2:07 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 6:44 AM Florian Fainelli <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 6/30/2020 9:37 PM, Mark Tomlinson wrote:
>
>>> That was one of my thoughts too. I found someone had tried that
>>> earlier, but it was rejected:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-gpio/patch/[email protected]/
>>
>> clk or reset APIs do not complain loudly on EPROBE_DEFER, it seems to me
>> that GPIO should follow here. Also, it does look like Linus was in
>> agreement in the end, not sure why it was not applied though.
>
> I never got an updated patch. My last message was:
>
>>> so you mean something like this?
>>>
>>> if (err == -EPROBE_DEFER)
>>> dev_info(dev, "deferring probe\n")
>>> else
>>> dev_err(dev, "... failed to register\n")
>>
>> Yes exactly.
>
> Patches welcome :D
Not sure how useful the dev_info(dev, "deferring probe\n") is nowadays
given that the device driver core will show which devices are on the
probe deferral list, maybe we can turn this into a dev_dbg() instead?
--
Florian
On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 6:44 AM Florian Fainelli <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 6/30/2020 9:37 PM, Mark Tomlinson wrote:
> > That was one of my thoughts too. I found someone had tried that
> > earlier, but it was rejected:
> >
> >
> > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-gpio/patch/[email protected]/
>
> clk or reset APIs do not complain loudly on EPROBE_DEFER, it seems to me
> that GPIO should follow here. Also, it does look like Linus was in
> agreement in the end, not sure why it was not applied though.
I never got an updated patch. My last message was:
>> so you mean something like this?
>>
>> if (err == -EPROBE_DEFER)
>> dev_info(dev, "deferring probe\n")
>> else
>> dev_err(dev, "... failed to register\n")
>
> Yes exactly.
Patches welcome :D
Yours,
Linus Walleij
On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 11:09 PM Florian Fainelli <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 7/11/2020 2:07 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > I never got an updated patch. My last message was:
> >
> >>> so you mean something like this?
> >>>
> >>> if (err == -EPROBE_DEFER)
> >>> dev_info(dev, "deferring probe\n")
> >>> else
> >>> dev_err(dev, "... failed to register\n")
> >>
> >> Yes exactly.
> >
> > Patches welcome :D
>
> Not sure how useful the dev_info(dev, "deferring probe\n") is nowadays
> given that the device driver core will show which devices are on the
> probe deferral list, maybe we can turn this into a dev_dbg() instead?
Oh right. Yeah that sounds right, then we can see that it's the
GPIO core bailing and deferring it when we turn on debug.
Yours,
Linus Walleij