* [PATCH 1/4] base: Introduce deferred probing
2015-04-10 1:02 [PATCH 0/4] Introduce deferred probing Sebastian Hesselbarth
@ 2015-04-10 1:02 ` Sebastian Hesselbarth
2015-04-13 6:54 ` Sascha Hauer
2015-04-10 1:02 ` [PATCH 2/4] gpio: Return -EPROBE_DEFER on gpio_get_num() Sebastian Hesselbarth
` (3 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Sebastian Hesselbarth @ 2015-04-10 1:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sebastian Hesselbarth; +Cc: barebox
As expected, we would need deferred probing sooner or later. This is
a first approach to allow devices to return -EPROBE_DEFER and get
sorted into a list of deferred devices that will be re-probed later.
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com>
---
Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org
---
drivers/base/driver.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
include/asm-generic/errno.h | 1 +
2 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/base/driver.c b/drivers/base/driver.c
index 590c97c96424..5eac21f3c950 100644
--- a/drivers/base/driver.c
+++ b/drivers/base/driver.c
@@ -29,6 +29,7 @@
#include <console.h>
#include <linux/ctype.h>
#include <errno.h>
+#include <init.h>
#include <fs.h>
#include <of.h>
#include <linux/list.h>
@@ -43,6 +44,7 @@ LIST_HEAD(driver_list);
EXPORT_SYMBOL(driver_list);
static LIST_HEAD(active);
+static LIST_HEAD(deferred);
struct device_d *get_device_by_name(const char *name)
{
@@ -88,13 +90,20 @@ int device_probe(struct device_d *dev)
list_add(&dev->active, &active);
ret = dev->bus->probe(dev);
- if (ret) {
+ if (ret == 0)
+ return 0;
+
+ if (ret == -EPROBE_DEFER) {
list_del(&dev->active);
- dev_err(dev, "probe failed: %s\n", strerror(-ret));
+ list_add(&dev->active, &deferred);
+ dev_dbg(dev, "probe deferred\n");
return ret;
}
- return 0;
+ list_del(&dev->active);
+ dev_err(dev, "probe failed: %s\n", strerror(-ret));
+
+ return ret;
}
int device_detect(struct device_d *dev)
@@ -213,6 +222,33 @@ int unregister_device(struct device_d *old_dev)
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(unregister_device);
+static int device_probe_deferred(void)
+{
+ struct device_d *dev, *tmp;
+ struct driver_d *drv;
+ int retries = 10;
+
+ do {
+ if (list_empty(&deferred))
+ break;
+
+ list_for_each_entry_safe(dev, tmp, &deferred, active) {
+ list_del(&dev->active);
+
+ if (dev->bus) {
+ bus_for_each_driver(dev->bus, drv) {
+ if (!match(drv, dev))
+ break;
+ }
+ device_probe(dev);
+ }
+ }
+ } while (retries--);
+
+ return 0;
+}
+late_initcall(device_probe_deferred);
+
struct driver_d *get_driver_by_name(const char *name)
{
struct driver_d *drv;
diff --git a/include/asm-generic/errno.h b/include/asm-generic/errno.h
index bbf493c373ae..6072f7b605bb 100644
--- a/include/asm-generic/errno.h
+++ b/include/asm-generic/errno.h
@@ -132,6 +132,7 @@
#define ERESTARTNOINTR 513
#define ERESTARTNOHAND 514 /* restart if no handler.. */
#define ENOIOCTLCMD 515 /* No ioctl command */
+#define EPROBE_DEFER 517 /* Driver requests probe retry */
#define ENOTSUPP 524 /* Operation is not supported */
--
2.1.0
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/4] base: Introduce deferred probing
2015-04-10 1:02 ` [PATCH 1/4] base: " Sebastian Hesselbarth
@ 2015-04-13 6:54 ` Sascha Hauer
2015-04-13 14:26 ` Sebastian Hesselbarth
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Sascha Hauer @ 2015-04-13 6:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sebastian Hesselbarth; +Cc: barebox
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 03:02:43AM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
> As expected, we would need deferred probing sooner or later. This is
> a first approach to allow devices to return -EPROBE_DEFER and get
> sorted into a list of deferred devices that will be re-probed later.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com>
> ---
> Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org
> ---
> drivers/base/driver.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> include/asm-generic/errno.h | 1 +
> 2 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/driver.c b/drivers/base/driver.c
> index 590c97c96424..5eac21f3c950 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/driver.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/driver.c
> @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@
> #include <console.h>
> #include <linux/ctype.h>
> #include <errno.h>
> +#include <init.h>
> #include <fs.h>
> #include <of.h>
> #include <linux/list.h>
> @@ -43,6 +44,7 @@ LIST_HEAD(driver_list);
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(driver_list);
>
> static LIST_HEAD(active);
> +static LIST_HEAD(deferred);
>
> struct device_d *get_device_by_name(const char *name)
> {
> @@ -88,13 +90,20 @@ int device_probe(struct device_d *dev)
> list_add(&dev->active, &active);
>
> ret = dev->bus->probe(dev);
> - if (ret) {
> + if (ret == 0)
> + return 0;
> +
> + if (ret == -EPROBE_DEFER) {
> list_del(&dev->active);
> - dev_err(dev, "probe failed: %s\n", strerror(-ret));
> + list_add(&dev->active, &deferred);
> + dev_dbg(dev, "probe deferred\n");
> return ret;
> }
>
> - return 0;
> + list_del(&dev->active);
> + dev_err(dev, "probe failed: %s\n", strerror(-ret));
> +
> + return ret;
> }
>
> int device_detect(struct device_d *dev)
> @@ -213,6 +222,33 @@ int unregister_device(struct device_d *old_dev)
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(unregister_device);
>
> +static int device_probe_deferred(void)
> +{
> + struct device_d *dev, *tmp;
> + struct driver_d *drv;
> + int retries = 10;
> +
> + do {
> + if (list_empty(&deferred))
> + break;
> +
> + list_for_each_entry_safe(dev, tmp, &deferred, active) {
> + list_del(&dev->active);
> +
> + if (dev->bus) {
> + bus_for_each_driver(dev->bus, drv) {
> + if (!match(drv, dev))
> + break;
> + }
> + device_probe(dev);
> + }
> + }
> + } while (retries--);
Instead of a hardcoded loop counter I think this should be "while at least
one device successfully probed". Also if probe fails and the return
value is still -EPROBE_DEFER you have to add the device to the deferred
list again.
Sascha
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/4] base: Introduce deferred probing
2015-04-13 6:54 ` Sascha Hauer
@ 2015-04-13 14:26 ` Sebastian Hesselbarth
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Sebastian Hesselbarth @ 2015-04-13 14:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sascha Hauer; +Cc: barebox
On 13.04.2015 08:54, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 03:02:43AM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
>> As expected, we would need deferred probing sooner or later. This is
>> a first approach to allow devices to return -EPROBE_DEFER and get
>> sorted into a list of deferred devices that will be re-probed later.
[...}
>> +static int device_probe_deferred(void)
>> +{
>> + struct device_d *dev, *tmp;
>> + struct driver_d *drv;
>> + int retries = 10;
>> +
>> + do {
>> + if (list_empty(&deferred))
>> + break;
>> +
>> + list_for_each_entry_safe(dev, tmp, &deferred, active) {
>> + list_del(&dev->active);
>> +
>> + if (dev->bus) {
>> + bus_for_each_driver(dev->bus, drv) {
>> + if (!match(drv, dev))
>> + break;
>> + }
>> + device_probe(dev);
>> + }
>> + }
>> + } while (retries--);
>
> Instead of a hardcoded loop counter I think this should be "while at least
> one device successfully probed". Also if probe fails and the return
> value is still -EPROBE_DEFER you have to add the device to the deferred
> list again.
Sascha,
agreed. I'll have another look at how deferred probing is handled here
and resend once I have implemented your comments above.
Sebastian
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 2/4] gpio: Return -EPROBE_DEFER on gpio_get_num()
2015-04-10 1:02 [PATCH 0/4] Introduce deferred probing Sebastian Hesselbarth
2015-04-10 1:02 ` [PATCH 1/4] base: " Sebastian Hesselbarth
@ 2015-04-10 1:02 ` Sebastian Hesselbarth
2015-04-10 1:02 ` [PATCH 3/4] OF: gpio: Silence error message on -EPROBE_DEFER Sebastian Hesselbarth
` (2 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Sebastian Hesselbarth @ 2015-04-10 1:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sebastian Hesselbarth; +Cc: barebox
GPIO drivers can be registered quite late in registration process
causing dependant devices to fail probing. If we know gpio_get_num
will be called with a non-NULL device, return -EPROBE_DEFER instead
of -ENODEV to allow re-probing later.
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com>
---
Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org
---
drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c | 5 ++++-
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
index 611e41ea5606..1f57c76ec16d 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
@@ -292,12 +292,15 @@ int gpio_get_num(struct device_d *dev, int gpio)
{
struct gpio_chip *chip;
+ if (!dev)
+ return -ENODEV;
+
list_for_each_entry(chip, &chip_list, list) {
if (chip->dev == dev)
return chip->base + gpio;
}
- return -ENODEV;
+ return -EPROBE_DEFER;
}
#ifdef CONFIG_CMD_GPIO
--
2.1.0
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 3/4] OF: gpio: Silence error message on -EPROBE_DEFER
2015-04-10 1:02 [PATCH 0/4] Introduce deferred probing Sebastian Hesselbarth
2015-04-10 1:02 ` [PATCH 1/4] base: " Sebastian Hesselbarth
2015-04-10 1:02 ` [PATCH 2/4] gpio: Return -EPROBE_DEFER on gpio_get_num() Sebastian Hesselbarth
@ 2015-04-10 1:02 ` Sebastian Hesselbarth
2015-04-10 1:02 ` [PATCH 4/4] led: gpio: Properly deal with deferred probing Sebastian Hesselbarth
2015-04-13 8:14 ` [PATCH 0/4] Introduce " Sascha Hauer
4 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Sebastian Hesselbarth @ 2015-04-10 1:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sebastian Hesselbarth; +Cc: barebox
With deferred probing, -EPROBE_DEFER is not worth spilling an error.
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com>
---
Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org
---
drivers/of/of_gpio.c | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/of/of_gpio.c b/drivers/of/of_gpio.c
index 6738a220a5a3..470ccfa1ba77 100644
--- a/drivers/of/of_gpio.c
+++ b/drivers/of/of_gpio.c
@@ -39,8 +39,9 @@ int of_get_named_gpio_flags(struct device_node *np, const char *propname,
ret = gpio_get_num(dev, out_args.args[0]);
if (ret < 0) {
- pr_err("%s: unable to get gpio num of device %s: %d\n",
- __func__, dev_name(dev), ret);
+ if (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER)
+ pr_err("%s: unable to get gpio num of device %s: %d\n",
+ __func__, dev_name(dev), ret);
return ret;
}
--
2.1.0
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 4/4] led: gpio: Properly deal with deferred probing
2015-04-10 1:02 [PATCH 0/4] Introduce deferred probing Sebastian Hesselbarth
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2015-04-10 1:02 ` [PATCH 3/4] OF: gpio: Silence error message on -EPROBE_DEFER Sebastian Hesselbarth
@ 2015-04-10 1:02 ` Sebastian Hesselbarth
2015-04-13 8:14 ` [PATCH 0/4] Introduce " Sascha Hauer
4 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Sebastian Hesselbarth @ 2015-04-10 1:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sebastian Hesselbarth; +Cc: barebox
GPIO LEDs can suffer from deferred probing due to failing gpio request.
If of_get_named_gpio_flags returns -EPROBE_DEFER, skip current LED and
request deferred probing later. Since not all LEDs have to fail, build
a mask of already registered LEDs to be skipped later on deferred probe.
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com>
---
Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org
---
drivers/led/led-gpio.c | 15 ++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/led/led-gpio.c b/drivers/led/led-gpio.c
index ae3f13f45b6c..91e5d5b76085 100644
--- a/drivers/led/led-gpio.c
+++ b/drivers/led/led-gpio.c
@@ -201,6 +201,8 @@ void led_gpio_rgb_unregister(struct gpio_led *led)
static int led_gpio_of_probe(struct device_d *dev)
{
struct device_node *child;
+ static u32 registered;
+ int ret = 0, n = 0;
for_each_child_of_node(dev->device_node, child) {
struct gpio_led *gled;
@@ -209,7 +211,15 @@ static int led_gpio_of_probe(struct device_d *dev)
int gpio;
const char *label;
+ /* On deferred probing, skip already registered LEDs */
+ if (registered & BIT(n)) {
+ n++;
+ continue;
+ }
+
gpio = of_get_named_gpio_flags(child, "gpios", 0, &flags);
+ if (gpio == -EPROBE_DEFER)
+ ret = -EPROBE_DEFER;
if (gpio < 0)
continue;
@@ -233,9 +243,12 @@ static int led_gpio_of_probe(struct device_d *dev)
else if (!strcmp(default_state, "off"))
led_gpio_set(&gled->led, 0);
}
+
+ registered |= BIT(n);
+ n++;
}
- return 0;
+ return ret;
}
static struct of_device_id led_gpio_of_ids[] = {
--
2.1.0
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 0/4] Introduce deferred probing
2015-04-10 1:02 [PATCH 0/4] Introduce deferred probing Sebastian Hesselbarth
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2015-04-10 1:02 ` [PATCH 4/4] led: gpio: Properly deal with deferred probing Sebastian Hesselbarth
@ 2015-04-13 8:14 ` Sascha Hauer
4 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Sascha Hauer @ 2015-04-13 8:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sebastian Hesselbarth; +Cc: barebox
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 03:02:42AM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
> As expected, the Lenovo ix4 has an poor-man's GPIO expander (74x163)
> connected by (guess what) GPIO bitbang SPI. This causes driver probing
> to fail when the GPIO expander is probed before GPIO SPI driver.
Hard to get this right without deferred probing. I agree that we reached
the point where deferred probing gets necessary.
Sascha
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread