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
In-Reply-To: <CAGETcx9T59dHXodt9MW=tTV_hYhtNOZzYFT=35D--VN7WJ0GqQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20211006193819.2654854-1-swboyd@chromium.org> <20211006193819.2654854-3-swboyd@chromium.org>
 <CAGETcx9T59dHXodt9MW=tTV_hYhtNOZzYFT=35D--VN7WJ0GqQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>
User-Agent: alot/0.9.1
Date:   Thu, 7 Oct 2021 14:40:07 -0400
Message-ID: <CAE-0n50YqKr1nKy-4WaxsfuwPiJ5kZcf46t-U_4i-TpfXzOX1g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/34] component: Introduce the aggregate bus_type
To:     Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, freedreno@lists.freedesktop.org,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com>,
        Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Quoting Saravana Kannan (2021-10-06 20:07:11)
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 12:38 PM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org> wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/base/component.c b/drivers/base/component.c
> > index 0a41bbe14981..d99e99cabb99 100644
> > --- a/drivers/base/component.c
> > +++ b/drivers/base/component.c
[...]
> > +                       continue;
> > +
> > +               /* Matches put in component_del() */
> > +               get_device(&adev->dev);
> > +               c->link = device_link_add(&adev->dev, c->dev,
> > +                                         DL_FLAG_STATELESS | DL_FLAG_PM_RUNTIME);
>
> Remove the STATELESS flag and you'll get a bunch of other stuff done for free:

I tried that and it didn't work for me. The aggregate device never
probed and I was left with no display. Let me see if I can reproduce it
with logging to provide more details.

> 1. The aggregate device would get force unbound when the component
> devices unbind.
> 2. You don't need to explicitly keep track of and delete the link. If
> either of the devices get deleted, it'll get deleted automatically.
> 3. It will avoid useless probe attempts of the aggregate device before
> all the component devices are probed.
>

I don't think point 3 is happening right now. We only try to probe the
aggregate device once all components probe.