2024-01-04 15:40:26

by Greg KH

Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] driver core: Keep the supplier fwnode consistent with the device

On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 08:46:32AM +0100, Herve Codina wrote:
> The commit 3a2dbc510c43 ("driver core: fw_devlink: Don't purge child
> fwnode's consumer links") introduces the possibility to use the
> supplier's parent device instead of the supplier itself.
> In that case the supplier fwnode used is not updated and is no more
> consistent with the supplier device used.
>
> Use the fwnode consistent with the supplier device when checking flags.
>
> Fixes: 3a2dbc510c43 ("driver core: fw_devlink: Don't purge child fwnode's consumer links")
> Cc: [email protected]
> Signed-off-by: Herve Codina <[email protected]>
> ---
> Changes v2 -> v3:
> Do not update the supplier handle in order to keep the original handle
> for debug traces.
>
> Changes v1 -> v2:
> Remove sup_handle check and related pr_debug() call as sup_handle cannot be
> invalid if sup_dev is valid.
>
> drivers/base/core.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/core.c b/drivers/base/core.c
> index 4d8b315c48a1..440b52ec027f 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/core.c
> @@ -2082,7 +2082,7 @@ static int fw_devlink_create_devlink(struct device *con,
> * supplier device indefinitely.
> */
> if (sup_dev->links.status == DL_DEV_NO_DRIVER &&
> - sup_handle->flags & FWNODE_FLAG_INITIALIZED) {
> + sup_dev->fwnode->flags & FWNODE_FLAG_INITIALIZED) {
> dev_dbg(con,
> "Not linking %pfwf - dev might never probe\n",
> sup_handle);
> --
> 2.41.0
>

Is this still needed? If so, how come no one is noticing it?

thanks,

greg k-h

2024-01-08 13:23:18

by Herve Codina

Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] driver core: Keep the supplier fwnode consistent with the device

Hi Greg,

On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 16:39:49 +0100
Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 08:46:32AM +0100, Herve Codina wrote:
> > The commit 3a2dbc510c43 ("driver core: fw_devlink: Don't purge child
> > fwnode's consumer links") introduces the possibility to use the
> > supplier's parent device instead of the supplier itself.
> > In that case the supplier fwnode used is not updated and is no more
> > consistent with the supplier device used.
> >
> > Use the fwnode consistent with the supplier device when checking flags.
> >
> > Fixes: 3a2dbc510c43 ("driver core: fw_devlink: Don't purge child fwnode's consumer links")
> > Cc: [email protected]
> > Signed-off-by: Herve Codina <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > Changes v2 -> v3:
> > Do not update the supplier handle in order to keep the original handle
> > for debug traces.
> >
> > Changes v1 -> v2:
> > Remove sup_handle check and related pr_debug() call as sup_handle cannot be
> > invalid if sup_dev is valid.
> >
> > drivers/base/core.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/base/core.c b/drivers/base/core.c
> > index 4d8b315c48a1..440b52ec027f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/base/core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/base/core.c
> > @@ -2082,7 +2082,7 @@ static int fw_devlink_create_devlink(struct device *con,
> > * supplier device indefinitely.
> > */
> > if (sup_dev->links.status == DL_DEV_NO_DRIVER &&
> > - sup_handle->flags & FWNODE_FLAG_INITIALIZED) {
> > + sup_dev->fwnode->flags & FWNODE_FLAG_INITIALIZED) {
> > dev_dbg(con,
> > "Not linking %pfwf - dev might never probe\n",
> > sup_handle);
> > --
> > 2.41.0
> >
>
> Is this still needed? If so, how come no one is noticing it?
>

I think it is. At least, I don't see anything that make this patch obsolete.

Hervé

2024-03-19 14:56:14

by Herve Codina

Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] driver core: Keep the supplier fwnode consistent with the device

Hi Saravana,

On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 14:23:02 +0100
Herve Codina <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Greg,
>
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 16:39:49 +0100
> Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 08:46:32AM +0100, Herve Codina wrote:
> > > The commit 3a2dbc510c43 ("driver core: fw_devlink: Don't purge child
> > > fwnode's consumer links") introduces the possibility to use the
> > > supplier's parent device instead of the supplier itself.
> > > In that case the supplier fwnode used is not updated and is no more
> > > consistent with the supplier device used.
> > >
> > > Use the fwnode consistent with the supplier device when checking flags.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 3a2dbc510c43 ("driver core: fw_devlink: Don't purge child fwnode's consumer links")
> > > Cc: [email protected]
> > > Signed-off-by: Herve Codina <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > Changes v2 -> v3:
> > > Do not update the supplier handle in order to keep the original handle
> > > for debug traces.
> > >
> > > Changes v1 -> v2:
> > > Remove sup_handle check and related pr_debug() call as sup_handle cannot be
> > > invalid if sup_dev is valid.
> > >
> > > drivers/base/core.c | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/base/core.c b/drivers/base/core.c
> > > index 4d8b315c48a1..440b52ec027f 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/base/core.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/base/core.c
> > > @@ -2082,7 +2082,7 @@ static int fw_devlink_create_devlink(struct device *con,
> > > * supplier device indefinitely.
> > > */
> > > if (sup_dev->links.status == DL_DEV_NO_DRIVER &&
> > > - sup_handle->flags & FWNODE_FLAG_INITIALIZED) {
> > > + sup_dev->fwnode->flags & FWNODE_FLAG_INITIALIZED) {
> > > dev_dbg(con,
> > > "Not linking %pfwf - dev might never probe\n",
> > > sup_handle);
> > > --
> > > 2.41.0
> > >
> >
> > Is this still needed? If so, how come no one is noticing it?
> >
>
> I think it is. At least, I don't see anything that make this patch obsolete.
>

Any opinion about this patch ?

Best regards,
Hervé