Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210516170539.2yxe43qwezonuo3r@core>
In-Reply-To: <20210516170539.2yxe43qwezonuo3r@core>
From:   Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>
Date:   Sun, 16 May 2021 23:32:47 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGETcx93RxfsXG51zeaUK+UyKdEDgivqkmS85mcMPp0H42X5ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: fw_devlink=on and sunxi HDMI
To:     =?UTF-8?Q?Ond=C5=99ej_Jirman?= <megi@xff.cz>,
        Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        linux-sunxi@lists.linux.dev, mripard@kernel.org, wens@csie.org,
        jernej.skrabec@gmail.com,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, andre.przywara@arm.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, May 16, 2021 at 10:05 AM Ond=C5=99ej Jirman <megi@xff.cz> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Linux 5.13-rc1 again has fw_devlink=3Don enabled by default. I've found t=
hat this
> breaks probing display pipeline and HDMI output on sunxi boards, because =
of
> fwnode_link between hdmi and hdmi-phy nodes.
>
> HDMI device probe keeps being avoided with these repeated messages in dme=
sg:
>
>   platform 1ee0000.hdmi: probe deferral - supplier 1ef0000.hdmi-phy not r=
eady
>
> Both nodes have their own compatible, but are implemented by a single
> struct device.
>
> This looks like a kind of situation that's expected to break fw_devlink
> expectations by my reading of the the e-mails about trying the fw_devlink=
=3Don
> during 5.12 cycle.
>
> Is this supposed to be solved by implementing the PHY node as it's own
> device or by breaking the fwnode_link between the hdmi phy and hdmi nodes=
?
> Seems like second solution would be quicker now that rc1 is out.

Seems like sun8i_hdmi_phy_probe() already does 95% of the work to make
the PHY a separate driver. Why not just finish it up by really making
it a separate driver? I'd really prefer doing that because this seems
unnecessarily messed up. The phy will have a struct device created for
it already. You are just not probing it.

Thanks,
Saravana

>
> Where would be a good place to break that fwnode_link in code?
>
> Or can the fw_devlink code be made aware of this situation, where two fwn=
odes
> are implemented by the same Linux device, somehow?
>
> Relevant references:
>
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.13-rc1/source/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/s=
un8i_hdmi_phy.c#L600
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.13-rc1/source/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/s=
un8i_dw_hdmi.c#L212
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.13-rc1/source/arch/arm64/boot/dts/all=
winner/sun50i-a64.dtsi#L1176
>
> kind regards,
>         o.