Quoting Saravana Kannan (2021-01-28 09:01:41)
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 2:45 AM Tudor Ambarus
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > The sama5d2 requires the clock provider initialized before timers.
> > We can't use a platform driver for the sama5d2-pmc driver, as the
> > platform_bus_init() is called later on, after time_init().
> >
> > As fw_devlink considers only devices, it does not know that the
> > pmc is ready. Hence probing of devices that depend on it fail:
> > probe deferral - supplier f0014000.pmc not ready
> >
> > Fix this by setting the OF_POPULATED flag for the sama5d2_pmc
> > device node after successful setup. This will make
> > of_link_to_phandle() ignore the sama5d2_pmc device node as a
> > dependency, and consumer devices will be probed again.
> >
> > Fixes: e590474768f1cc04 ("driver core: Set fw_devlink=on by default")
> > Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > I'll be out of office, will check the rest of the at91 SoCs
> > at the begining of next week.
> >
> > drivers/clk/at91/sama5d2.c | 2 ++
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/at91/sama5d2.c b/drivers/clk/at91/sama5d2.c
> > index 9a5cbc7cd55a..5eea2b4a63dd 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/at91/sama5d2.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/at91/sama5d2.c
> > @@ -367,6 +367,8 @@ static void __init sama5d2_pmc_setup(struct device_node *np)
> >
> > of_clk_add_hw_provider(np, of_clk_hw_pmc_get, sama5d2_pmc);
> >
> > + of_node_set_flag(np, OF_POPULATED);
> > +
> > return;
>
> Hi Tudor,
>
> Thanks for looking into this.
>
> I already accounted for early clocks like this when I designed
> fw_devlink. Each driver shouldn't need to set OF_POPULATED.
> drivers/clk/clk.c already does this for you.
>
> I think the problem is that your driver is using
> CLK_OF_DECLARE_DRIVER() instead of CLK_OF_DECLARE(). The comments for
> CLK_OF_DECLARE_DRIVER() says:
> /*
> * Use this macro when you have a driver that requires two initialization
> * routines, one at of_clk_init(), and one at platform device probe
> */
>
> In your case, you are explicitly NOT having a driver bind to this
> clock later. So you shouldn't be using CLK_OF_DECLARE() instead.
>
I see
drivers/power/reset/at91-sama5d2_shdwc.c: { .compatible = "atmel,sama5d2-pmc" },
so isn't that the driver that wants to bind to the same device node
again? First at of_clk_init() time here and then second for the reset
driver?
On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 11:55 PM Stephen Boyd <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Quoting Saravana Kannan (2021-01-28 09:01:41)
> > On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 2:45 AM Tudor Ambarus
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > The sama5d2 requires the clock provider initialized before timers.
> > > We can't use a platform driver for the sama5d2-pmc driver, as the
> > > platform_bus_init() is called later on, after time_init().
> > >
> > > As fw_devlink considers only devices, it does not know that the
> > > pmc is ready. Hence probing of devices that depend on it fail:
> > > probe deferral - supplier f0014000.pmc not ready
> > >
> > > Fix this by setting the OF_POPULATED flag for the sama5d2_pmc
> > > device node after successful setup. This will make
> > > of_link_to_phandle() ignore the sama5d2_pmc device node as a
> > > dependency, and consumer devices will be probed again.
> > >
> > > Fixes: e590474768f1cc04 ("driver core: Set fw_devlink=on by default")
> > > Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > I'll be out of office, will check the rest of the at91 SoCs
> > > at the begining of next week.
> > >
> > > drivers/clk/at91/sama5d2.c | 2 ++
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/clk/at91/sama5d2.c b/drivers/clk/at91/sama5d2.c
> > > index 9a5cbc7cd55a..5eea2b4a63dd 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/clk/at91/sama5d2.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/clk/at91/sama5d2.c
> > > @@ -367,6 +367,8 @@ static void __init sama5d2_pmc_setup(struct device_node *np)
> > >
> > > of_clk_add_hw_provider(np, of_clk_hw_pmc_get, sama5d2_pmc);
> > >
> > > + of_node_set_flag(np, OF_POPULATED);
> > > +
> > > return;
> >
> > Hi Tudor,
> >
> > Thanks for looking into this.
> >
> > I already accounted for early clocks like this when I designed
> > fw_devlink. Each driver shouldn't need to set OF_POPULATED.
> > drivers/clk/clk.c already does this for you.
> >
> > I think the problem is that your driver is using
> > CLK_OF_DECLARE_DRIVER() instead of CLK_OF_DECLARE(). The comments for
> > CLK_OF_DECLARE_DRIVER() says:
> > /*
> > * Use this macro when you have a driver that requires two initialization
> > * routines, one at of_clk_init(), and one at platform device probe
> > */
> >
> > In your case, you are explicitly NOT having a driver bind to this
> > clock later. So you shouldn't be using CLK_OF_DECLARE() instead.
> >
>
> I see
>
> drivers/power/reset/at91-sama5d2_shdwc.c: { .compatible = "atmel,sama5d2-pmc" },
>
> so isn't that the driver that wants to bind to the same device node
> again? First at of_clk_init() time here and then second for the reset
> driver?
You are right. I assumed that when Tudor was setting OF_POPULATED,
they didn't want to create a struct device and they knew it was right
for their platform.
However...
$ git grep "atmel,sama5d2-pmc"
arch/arm/boot/dts/sama5d2.dtsi: compatible =
"atmel,sama5d2-pmc", "syscon";
arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c: { .compatible = "atmel,sama5d2-pmc",
.data = &pmc_infos[1] },
drivers/clk/at91/pmc.c: { .compatible = "atmel,sama5d2-pmc" },
drivers/clk/at91/sama5d2.c:CLK_OF_DECLARE_DRIVER(sama5d2_pmc,
"atmel,sama5d2-pmc", sama5d2_pmc_setup);
drivers/power/reset/at91-sama5d2_shdwc.c: { .compatible =
"atmel,sama5d2-pmc" },
Geez! How many drivers are there for this one device. Clearly not all
of them are going to bind. But I'm not going to dig into this. You can
reject this patch. I expect this series [1] to take care of the issue
Tudor was trying to fix.
Tudor,
Want to give this series [1] a shot?
[1] - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
-Saravana
Hi, Stephen,
On 2/9/21 9:55 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>
> Quoting Saravana Kannan (2021-01-28 09:01:41)
>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 2:45 AM Tudor Ambarus
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> The sama5d2 requires the clock provider initialized before timers.
>>> We can't use a platform driver for the sama5d2-pmc driver, as the
>>> platform_bus_init() is called later on, after time_init().
>>>
>>> As fw_devlink considers only devices, it does not know that the
>>> pmc is ready. Hence probing of devices that depend on it fail:
>>> probe deferral - supplier f0014000.pmc not ready
>>>
>>> Fix this by setting the OF_POPULATED flag for the sama5d2_pmc
>>> device node after successful setup. This will make
>>> of_link_to_phandle() ignore the sama5d2_pmc device node as a
>>> dependency, and consumer devices will be probed again.
>>>
>>> Fixes: e590474768f1cc04 ("driver core: Set fw_devlink=on by default")
>>> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> I'll be out of office, will check the rest of the at91 SoCs
>>> at the begining of next week.
>>>
>>> drivers/clk/at91/sama5d2.c | 2 ++
>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/at91/sama5d2.c b/drivers/clk/at91/sama5d2.c
>>> index 9a5cbc7cd55a..5eea2b4a63dd 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/clk/at91/sama5d2.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/clk/at91/sama5d2.c
>>> @@ -367,6 +367,8 @@ static void __init sama5d2_pmc_setup(struct device_node *np)
>>>
>>> of_clk_add_hw_provider(np, of_clk_hw_pmc_get, sama5d2_pmc);
>>>
>>> + of_node_set_flag(np, OF_POPULATED);
>>> +
>>> return;
>>
>> Hi Tudor,
>>
>> Thanks for looking into this.
>>
>> I already accounted for early clocks like this when I designed
>> fw_devlink. Each driver shouldn't need to set OF_POPULATED.
>> drivers/clk/clk.c already does this for you.
>>
>> I think the problem is that your driver is using
>> CLK_OF_DECLARE_DRIVER() instead of CLK_OF_DECLARE(). The comments for
>> CLK_OF_DECLARE_DRIVER() says:
>> /*
>> * Use this macro when you have a driver that requires two initialization
>> * routines, one at of_clk_init(), and one at platform device probe
>> */
>>
>> In your case, you are explicitly NOT having a driver bind to this
>> clock later. So you shouldn't be using CLK_OF_DECLARE() instead.
>>
>
> I see
>
> drivers/power/reset/at91-sama5d2_shdwc.c: { .compatible = "atmel,sama5d2-pmc" },
>
> so isn't that the driver that wants to bind to the same device node
> again? First at of_clk_init() time here and then second for the reset
> driver?
No, it isn't. at91_shdwc_driver binds the compatibles from at91_shdwc_of_match:
static const struct of_device_id at91_shdwc_of_match[] = {
{
.compatible = "atmel,sama5d2-shdwc",
.data = &sama5d2_reg_config,
},
{
.compatible = "microchip,sam9x60-shdwc",
.data = &sam9x60_reg_config,
}, {
/*sentinel*/
}
};
MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, at91_shdwc_of_match);
The pmc compatibles are later on used in the probe function in order to
get with of_iomap() the pmc_base, that is later used in at91_poweroff()
method.
Just for the reference, this patch is superseded by the following:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
Cheers,
ta
Hi, Saravana,
On 2/9/21 11:11 AM, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 11:55 PM Stephen Boyd <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Quoting Saravana Kannan (2021-01-28 09:01:41)
>>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 2:45 AM Tudor Ambarus
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The sama5d2 requires the clock provider initialized before timers.
>>>> We can't use a platform driver for the sama5d2-pmc driver, as the
>>>> platform_bus_init() is called later on, after time_init().
>>>>
>>>> As fw_devlink considers only devices, it does not know that the
>>>> pmc is ready. Hence probing of devices that depend on it fail:
>>>> probe deferral - supplier f0014000.pmc not ready
>>>>
>>>> Fix this by setting the OF_POPULATED flag for the sama5d2_pmc
>>>> device node after successful setup. This will make
>>>> of_link_to_phandle() ignore the sama5d2_pmc device node as a
>>>> dependency, and consumer devices will be probed again.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: e590474768f1cc04 ("driver core: Set fw_devlink=on by default")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <[email protected]>
>>>> ---
>>>> I'll be out of office, will check the rest of the at91 SoCs
>>>> at the begining of next week.
>>>>
>>>> drivers/clk/at91/sama5d2.c | 2 ++
>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/at91/sama5d2.c b/drivers/clk/at91/sama5d2.c
>>>> index 9a5cbc7cd55a..5eea2b4a63dd 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/clk/at91/sama5d2.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/clk/at91/sama5d2.c
>>>> @@ -367,6 +367,8 @@ static void __init sama5d2_pmc_setup(struct device_node *np)
>>>>
>>>> of_clk_add_hw_provider(np, of_clk_hw_pmc_get, sama5d2_pmc);
>>>>
>>>> + of_node_set_flag(np, OF_POPULATED);
>>>> +
>>>> return;
>>>
>>> Hi Tudor,
>>>
>>> Thanks for looking into this.
>>>
>>> I already accounted for early clocks like this when I designed
>>> fw_devlink. Each driver shouldn't need to set OF_POPULATED.
>>> drivers/clk/clk.c already does this for you.
>>>
>>> I think the problem is that your driver is using
>>> CLK_OF_DECLARE_DRIVER() instead of CLK_OF_DECLARE(). The comments for
>>> CLK_OF_DECLARE_DRIVER() says:
>>> /*
>>> * Use this macro when you have a driver that requires two initialization
>>> * routines, one at of_clk_init(), and one at platform device probe
>>> */
>>>
>>> In your case, you are explicitly NOT having a driver bind to this
>>> clock later. So you shouldn't be using CLK_OF_DECLARE() instead.
>>>
>>
>> I see
>>
>> drivers/power/reset/at91-sama5d2_shdwc.c: { .compatible = "atmel,sama5d2-pmc" },
>>
>> so isn't that the driver that wants to bind to the same device node
>> again? First at of_clk_init() time here and then second for the reset
>> driver?
>
> You are right. I assumed that when Tudor was setting OF_POPULATED,
No, there's a single driver that binds to that compatible.
> they didn't want to create a struct device and they knew it was right
> for their platform.
>
> However...
> $ git grep "atmel,sama5d2-pmc"
> arch/arm/boot/dts/sama5d2.dtsi: compatible =
> "atmel,sama5d2-pmc", "syscon";
> arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c: { .compatible = "atmel,sama5d2-pmc",
> .data = &pmc_infos[1] },
> drivers/clk/at91/pmc.c: { .compatible = "atmel,sama5d2-pmc" },
> drivers/clk/at91/sama5d2.c:CLK_OF_DECLARE_DRIVER(sama5d2_pmc,
> "atmel,sama5d2-pmc", sama5d2_pmc_setup);
> drivers/power/reset/at91-sama5d2_shdwc.c: { .compatible =
> "atmel,sama5d2-pmc" },
>
> Geez! How many drivers are there for this one device. Clearly not all
> of them are going to bind. But I'm not going to dig into this. You can
From this entire list only the drivers/clk/at91/sama5d2.c driver binds to the
"atmel,sama5d2-pmc" compatible, the rest are just using the compatible to
map the PMC memory.
> reject this patch. I expect this series [1] to take care of the issue
> Tudor was trying to fix.
>
> Tudor,
>
> Want to give this series [1] a shot?
The series at [1] doesn't apply clean neither on next-20210209, nor on
driver-core-next. On top of which sha1 should I apply them?
Anyway, I think the patch at [2] is still needed, regardless of the outcome
of [1].
>
> [1] - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
Cheers,
ta
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 7:21 AM <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi, Saravana,
>
> On 2/9/21 11:11 AM, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 11:55 PM Stephen Boyd <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Quoting Saravana Kannan (2021-01-28 09:01:41)
> >>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 2:45 AM Tudor Ambarus
> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> The sama5d2 requires the clock provider initialized before timers.
> >>>> We can't use a platform driver for the sama5d2-pmc driver, as the
> >>>> platform_bus_init() is called later on, after time_init().
> >>>>
> >>>> As fw_devlink considers only devices, it does not know that the
> >>>> pmc is ready. Hence probing of devices that depend on it fail:
> >>>> probe deferral - supplier f0014000.pmc not ready
> >>>>
> >>>> Fix this by setting the OF_POPULATED flag for the sama5d2_pmc
> >>>> device node after successful setup. This will make
> >>>> of_link_to_phandle() ignore the sama5d2_pmc device node as a
> >>>> dependency, and consumer devices will be probed again.
> >>>>
> >>>> Fixes: e590474768f1cc04 ("driver core: Set fw_devlink=on by default")
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <[email protected]>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> I'll be out of office, will check the rest of the at91 SoCs
> >>>> at the begining of next week.
> >>>>
> >>>> drivers/clk/at91/sama5d2.c | 2 ++
> >>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/at91/sama5d2.c b/drivers/clk/at91/sama5d2.c
> >>>> index 9a5cbc7cd55a..5eea2b4a63dd 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/clk/at91/sama5d2.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/clk/at91/sama5d2.c
> >>>> @@ -367,6 +367,8 @@ static void __init sama5d2_pmc_setup(struct device_node *np)
> >>>>
> >>>> of_clk_add_hw_provider(np, of_clk_hw_pmc_get, sama5d2_pmc);
> >>>>
> >>>> + of_node_set_flag(np, OF_POPULATED);
> >>>> +
> >>>> return;
> >>>
> >>> Hi Tudor,
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for looking into this.
> >>>
> >>> I already accounted for early clocks like this when I designed
> >>> fw_devlink. Each driver shouldn't need to set OF_POPULATED.
> >>> drivers/clk/clk.c already does this for you.
> >>>
> >>> I think the problem is that your driver is using
> >>> CLK_OF_DECLARE_DRIVER() instead of CLK_OF_DECLARE(). The comments for
> >>> CLK_OF_DECLARE_DRIVER() says:
> >>> /*
> >>> * Use this macro when you have a driver that requires two initialization
> >>> * routines, one at of_clk_init(), and one at platform device probe
> >>> */
> >>>
> >>> In your case, you are explicitly NOT having a driver bind to this
> >>> clock later. So you shouldn't be using CLK_OF_DECLARE() instead.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I see
> >>
> >> drivers/power/reset/at91-sama5d2_shdwc.c: { .compatible = "atmel,sama5d2-pmc" },
> >>
> >> so isn't that the driver that wants to bind to the same device node
> >> again? First at of_clk_init() time here and then second for the reset
> >> driver?
> >
> > You are right. I assumed that when Tudor was setting OF_POPULATED,
>
> No, there's a single driver that binds to that compatible.
>
> > they didn't want to create a struct device and they knew it was right
> > for their platform.
> >
> > However...
> > $ git grep "atmel,sama5d2-pmc"
> > arch/arm/boot/dts/sama5d2.dtsi: compatible =
> > "atmel,sama5d2-pmc", "syscon";
> > arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c: { .compatible = "atmel,sama5d2-pmc",
> > .data = &pmc_infos[1] },
> > drivers/clk/at91/pmc.c: { .compatible = "atmel,sama5d2-pmc" },
> > drivers/clk/at91/sama5d2.c:CLK_OF_DECLARE_DRIVER(sama5d2_pmc,
> > "atmel,sama5d2-pmc", sama5d2_pmc_setup);
> > drivers/power/reset/at91-sama5d2_shdwc.c: { .compatible =
> > "atmel,sama5d2-pmc" },
> >
> > Geez! How many drivers are there for this one device. Clearly not all
> > of them are going to bind. But I'm not going to dig into this. You can
>
> From this entire list only the drivers/clk/at91/sama5d2.c driver binds to the
> "atmel,sama5d2-pmc" compatible, the rest are just using the compatible to
> map the PMC memory.
>
> > reject this patch. I expect this series [1] to take care of the issue
> > Tudor was trying to fix.
> >
> > Tudor,
> >
> > Want to give this series [1] a shot?
>
> The series at [1] doesn't apply clean neither on next-20210209, nor on
> driver-core-next. On top of which sha1 should I apply them?
It's on top of driver-core-next:
4731210c09f5 gpiolib: Bind gpio_device to a driver to enable
fw_devlink=on by default
> Anyway, I think the patch at [2] is still needed, regardless of the outcome
> of [1].
Right, [2] is still a good clean up based on your comment above.
-Saravana
> >
> > [1] - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
>
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
>
> Cheers,
> ta
>
Hi, Saravana,
On 2/9/21 9:06 PM, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 7:21 AM <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi, Saravana,
>>
>> On 2/9/21 11:11 AM, Saravana Kannan wrote:
>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 11:55 PM Stephen Boyd <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Quoting Saravana Kannan (2021-01-28 09:01:41)
>>>>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 2:45 AM Tudor Ambarus
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The sama5d2 requires the clock provider initialized before timers.
>>>>>> We can't use a platform driver for the sama5d2-pmc driver, as the
>>>>>> platform_bus_init() is called later on, after time_init().
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As fw_devlink considers only devices, it does not know that the
>>>>>> pmc is ready. Hence probing of devices that depend on it fail:
>>>>>> probe deferral - supplier f0014000.pmc not ready
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fix this by setting the OF_POPULATED flag for the sama5d2_pmc
>>>>>> device node after successful setup. This will make
>>>>>> of_link_to_phandle() ignore the sama5d2_pmc device node as a
>>>>>> dependency, and consumer devices will be probed again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fixes: e590474768f1cc04 ("driver core: Set fw_devlink=on by default")
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <[email protected]>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> I'll be out of office, will check the rest of the at91 SoCs
>>>>>> at the begining of next week.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> drivers/clk/at91/sama5d2.c | 2 ++
>>>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/at91/sama5d2.c b/drivers/clk/at91/sama5d2.c
>>>>>> index 9a5cbc7cd55a..5eea2b4a63dd 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/clk/at91/sama5d2.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/clk/at91/sama5d2.c
>>>>>> @@ -367,6 +367,8 @@ static void __init sama5d2_pmc_setup(struct device_node *np)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> of_clk_add_hw_provider(np, of_clk_hw_pmc_get, sama5d2_pmc);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> + of_node_set_flag(np, OF_POPULATED);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> return;
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Tudor,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for looking into this.
>>>>>
>>>>> I already accounted for early clocks like this when I designed
>>>>> fw_devlink. Each driver shouldn't need to set OF_POPULATED.
>>>>> drivers/clk/clk.c already does this for you.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the problem is that your driver is using
>>>>> CLK_OF_DECLARE_DRIVER() instead of CLK_OF_DECLARE(). The comments for
>>>>> CLK_OF_DECLARE_DRIVER() says:
>>>>> /*
>>>>> * Use this macro when you have a driver that requires two initialization
>>>>> * routines, one at of_clk_init(), and one at platform device probe
>>>>> */
>>>>>
>>>>> In your case, you are explicitly NOT having a driver bind to this
>>>>> clock later. So you shouldn't be using CLK_OF_DECLARE() instead.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I see
>>>>
>>>> drivers/power/reset/at91-sama5d2_shdwc.c: { .compatible = "atmel,sama5d2-pmc" },
>>>>
>>>> so isn't that the driver that wants to bind to the same device node
>>>> again? First at of_clk_init() time here and then second for the reset
>>>> driver?
>>>
>>> You are right. I assumed that when Tudor was setting OF_POPULATED,
>>
>> No, there's a single driver that binds to that compatible.
>>
>>> they didn't want to create a struct device and they knew it was right
>>> for their platform.
>>>
>>> However...
>>> $ git grep "atmel,sama5d2-pmc"
>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/sama5d2.dtsi: compatible =
>>> "atmel,sama5d2-pmc", "syscon";
>>> arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c: { .compatible = "atmel,sama5d2-pmc",
>>> .data = &pmc_infos[1] },
>>> drivers/clk/at91/pmc.c: { .compatible = "atmel,sama5d2-pmc" },
>>> drivers/clk/at91/sama5d2.c:CLK_OF_DECLARE_DRIVER(sama5d2_pmc,
>>> "atmel,sama5d2-pmc", sama5d2_pmc_setup);
>>> drivers/power/reset/at91-sama5d2_shdwc.c: { .compatible =
>>> "atmel,sama5d2-pmc" },
>>>
>>> Geez! How many drivers are there for this one device. Clearly not all
>>> of them are going to bind. But I'm not going to dig into this. You can
>>
>> From this entire list only the drivers/clk/at91/sama5d2.c driver binds to the
>> "atmel,sama5d2-pmc" compatible, the rest are just using the compatible to
>> map the PMC memory.
>>
>>> reject this patch. I expect this series [1] to take care of the issue
>>> Tudor was trying to fix.
>>>
>>> Tudor,
>>>
>>> Want to give this series [1] a shot?
>>
>> The series at [1] doesn't apply clean neither on next-20210209, nor on
>> driver-core-next. On top of which sha1 should I apply them?
>
> It's on top of driver-core-next:
> 4731210c09f5 gpiolib: Bind gpio_device to a driver to enable
> fw_devlink=on by default
I see Greg took your series. I tried the driver-core-next (with your series
included), it doesn't solve my boot problem on sama5d2_xplained.
With [2] applied, sama5d2_xplained can boot again.
Cheers,
ta
>
>> Anyway, I think the patch at [2] is still needed, regardless of the outcome
>> of [1].
>
> Right, [2] is still a good clean up based on your comment above.
>
> -Saravana
>
>>>
>>> [1] - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
>>
>> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
>>
>> Cheers,
>> ta
>>