Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-74416-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230901183240.102701-1-brgl@bgdev.pl> <ZPJTT/l9fX1lhu6O@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <CAMRc=Mekf9Rek3_G2ttQY+yBvWM3+P4RAWVOQH99eajn38F+og@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZPWcTMPiu4MSq+F7@smile.fi.intel.com> <CAMRc=MfZv70FXHyNw4yK90NL5-jjAJa6qbKc6SV2ZwbaJkKQqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZPWmDL6QJJMNi2qa@smile.fi.intel.com> <CAMRc=Mc0JgPUEpaes7WcbkMu5JyrpLW8N1+bM-+OJaB+pPX4ew@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZPWr3dRP5C1GSY9F@smile.fi.intel.com> <CAMRc=Mfae+=HPPWzsG8bgK2CGOGY9GPkS5VZcwLyr_yY8A_y2g@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZPWxbfHNOqAnkR09@smile.fi.intel.com> <CAGETcx9wERf-R4=r_jBYpYgGHSxS=-xx_ydeVWZdGUvEWTQwzg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGETcx9wERf-R4=r_jBYpYgGHSxS=-xx_ydeVWZdGUvEWTQwzg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 10:34:04 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMRc=Mfsw9MGCxnZO+zWfcsFoeA6XHCpZ95eS7-vK4cvwJt-9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: sim: don't fiddle with GPIOLIB private members
To: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>, 
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>, Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com>, 
	linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>, 
	Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@android.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 2:47=E2=80=AFAM Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.c=
om> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 3:29=E2=80=AFAM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 04, 2023 at 12:12:44PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 12:05=E2=80=AFPM Andy Shevchenko
> > > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Sep 04, 2023 at 11:47:54AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote=
:
> > > > > On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 11:40=E2=80=AFAM Andy Shevchenko
> > > > > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Sep 04, 2023 at 11:22:32AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski w=
rote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 10:59=E2=80=AFAM Andy Shevchenko
> > > > > > > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 02, 2023 at 04:40:05PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszews=
ki wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 11:10=E2=80=AFPM Andy Shevchenko
> > > > > > > > > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 01, 2023 at 08:32:40PM +0200, Bartosz Golas=
zewski wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > -     /* Used by sysfs and configfs callbacks. */
> > > > > > > > > > > -     dev_set_drvdata(&gc->gpiodev->dev, chip);
> > > > > > > > > > > +     /* Used by sysfs callbacks. */
> > > > > > > > > > > +     dev_set_drvdata(swnode->dev, chip);
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > dev pointer of firmware node is solely for dev links. I=
s it the case here?
> > > > > > > > > > Seems to me you luckily abuse it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I don't think so. If anything we have a helper in the for=
m of
> > > > > > > > > get_dev_from_fwnode() but it takes reference to the devic=
e while we
> > > > > > > > > don't need it - we know it'll be there because we created=
 it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This information (struct device of the GPIO device) can a=
lso be
> > > > > > > > > retrieved by iterating over the device children of the to=
p platform
> > > > > > > > > device and comparing their fwnodes against the one we got=
 passed down
> > > > > > > > > from probe() but it's just so many extra steps.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Or we can have a getter in gpio/driver.h for that but I d=
on't want to
> > > > > > > > > expose another interface is we can simply use the fwnode.
> > > > > > > >
>
> Sorry for being late to the party.
>
> > > > > > > > dev pointer in the fwnode strictly speaking is optional. No=
-one, except
> > > > > > > > its solely user, should rely on it (its presence and lifeti=
me).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Where is this documented? Because just by a quick glance into
> > > > > > > drivers/base/core.c I can tell that if a device has an fwnode=
 then
> > > > > > > fwnode->dev gets assigned when the device is created and clea=
red when
> > > > > > > it's removed (note: note even attached to driver, just
> > > > > > > created/removed). Seems like pretty reliable behavior to me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, and even that member in fwnode is a hack in my opinion. We=
 should not mix
> > > > > > layers and the idea in the future to get rid of the fwnode_hand=
le to be
> > > > > > _embedded_ into struct device. It should be separate entity, an=
d device
> > > > > > instance may use it as a linked list. Currently we have a few p=
roblems because
> > > > > > of the this design mistake.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't see how this would work if fwnodes can exist before struc=
t
> > > > > device is even created.
> > > >
> > > > That's whole idea behind swnodes. They (ideally) should be created =
_before_
> > > > any other object they are being used with. This is how it works tod=
ay.
> > >
> > > Yes, this is what I meant: if fwnodes can be created before struct
> > > device (as it is now) and their life-time is separated then how could
> > > you possibly make the fwnode part of struct device?
> > >
> > > > And doing swnode->dev =3D ... contradicts a lot: layering, lifetime=
 objects, etc.
>
> I understand what you are trying to say about layering, but there are
> no lifetime violations here.
>
> > >
> > > No it doesn't. We have the software node - the template for the
> > > device. It can only be populated with a single device entry.
> >
> > Which is wrong assumption. Software nodes (and firmware nodes) in gener=
al
> > can be shared. Which device pointer you want to add there?
>
> I don't think this is any harder to handle than how a device's
> secondary fwnode is handled in set_primary_fwnode(). For secondary
> fwnodes, you just WARN and overwrite it and move on.
>
> > Which one
> > should be next when one of the devices is gone?
>
> Similar to how set_primary_fwnode() handles deletion (NULL), you can
> handle the same for when a device is removed. You can check the parent
> or the bus for another device with the same fwnode and set it.
>
> > No, simply no. Do not use it!
>
> Using fwnode_handle->dev is no different than searching a bus for a
> device which has dev->fwnode match the fwnode you are looking for.
>
> In both cases, you are just going to get the first device that was
> added. It's completely pointless to force searching a bus to find the
> device with a specific fwnode.
>
> In the special cases where one fwnode has multiple devices, no generic
> code is going to always handle the device search correctly. The
> framework adding those devices probably knows what's the right thing
> to do based on which of the N devices with the same fwnode they are
> trying to find.
>
> I understand it's not great, but blindly saying "search the bus" isn't
> really improving anything here and just makes things unnecessarily
> inefficient.
>
> -Saravana

Thanks for the input. I've since moved to using device_find_child()
but will keep it in mind for the future.

Bart

>
> >
> > > Once it's done, I don't see why you wouldn't want to assign this devi=
ce to
> > > its corresponding software node. Provided locking is in place etc.
> > >
> > > > > They - after all - represent the actual
> > > > > physical device hierarchy which may or may not be populated at
> > > > > run-time depending on many factors.
> > > >
> > > > No. This is a mistaken assumption.
> > >
> > > How so?
> >
> > See above.
> >
> > > > > Once populated, being able to retrieve the software representatio=
n of
> > > > > the device (struct device) from the node from which it was popula=
ted
> > > > > sounds like a reasonable thing to do. What are those problems and=
 are
> > > > > they even linked to this issue?
> > > > >
> > > > > > The get_dev_from_fwnode() is used only in devlink and I want to=
 keep it that way.
> > > > > > Nobody else should use it, really.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't care all that much, I can get the device from the childre=
n of
> > > > > the platform device. Still comparing fwnodes, though this time th=
e
> > > > > other way around.
> > > >
> > > > Fine, but do not use dev pointer from fwnode, esp. software node.
> > >
> > > I will do it but I'd like to clarify the above at some point.
> >
> > The relationship between device instance(s) and firmware node instance(=
s)
> > is m:n, where each of them can be from 0 to ... x or y.
> >
> > There is no unique mapping between two.