Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:1;
Date:   Thu, 14 Dec 2023 15:09:36 +0100
From:   Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>
To:     Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
Cc:     Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com>, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
        Rob Clark <robdclark@chromium.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] soc: qcom: pmic_glink: Fix boot when QRTR=m
Message-ID: <ZXsMoFiivUCWA0yr@hovoldconsulting.com>
References: <20231213210644.8702-1-robdclark@gmail.com>
 <ZXqr0RFw9KsP876v@hovoldconsulting.com>
 <CAA8EJpoSvaq9imP-dT4p=4jveZyFmh=OoWOP7jWGo4OYkHQDTA@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZXsKzsij3Xb50Ap9@hovoldconsulting.com>
 <CAA8EJpqBstKyAfUcBPzoF2CitTwWBZ9Xhd28Y+FCo14OoBqkxw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAA8EJpqBstKyAfUcBPzoF2CitTwWBZ9Xhd28Y+FCo14OoBqkxw@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 04:04:49PM +0200, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 16:01, Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 01:04:43PM +0200, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > > On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 09:16, Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 01:06:43PM -0800, Rob Clark wrote:
> > > > > From: Rob Clark <robdclark@chromium.org>
> > > > >
> > > > > We need to bail out before adding/removing devices, if we are going
> > > > > to -EPROBE_DEFER.  Otherwise boot will get stuck forever at
> > > > > deferred_probe_initcall().
> > > >
> > > > Can please you expand on why this is a problem here in the commit
> > > > message?
> > > >
> > > > The aux devices appear to be tore down correctly in the probe error
> > > > paths so how exactly does that lead to deferred_probe_initcall() being
> > > > stuck? This sounds like we may have a problem elsewhere which this patch
> > > > is papering over.
> > >
> > > This is a known problem. Successful probes during the probe deferral
> > > loop causes the whole loop to be reiterated. Creating child devices
> > > usually results in  a successful probe. Aso I thought that just
> > > creating new device also causes a reprobe, but I can not find any
> > > evidence now.
> >
> > This still needs to be described in the commit message.
> >
> > Only a successful probe should trigger a reprobe, and when the child
> > devices are registered the parent is not yet on the deferred probe list.
> > So something is not right or missing here.
> 
> Child devices can be successfully probed, then the parent gets
> -EPROBE_DEFER, removes children and then it goes on and on.

So what? As I described above, the successful probe of the children
should have nothing to do with whether the parent is reprobed.

If that isn't the case, then explain how.

Johan