Re: [PATCH v6 0/22] On-demand device probing

From: Greg Kroah-Hartman
Date: Sat Sep 26 2015 - 15:22:25 EST

On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 01:17:04PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On 09/21/2015 09:02 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I have a problem with the panel on my Tegra Chromebook taking longer
> > than expected to be ready during boot (Stéphane Marchesin reported what
> > is basically the same issue in [0]), and have looked into ordered
> > probing as a better way of solving this than moving nodes around in the
> > DT or playing with initcall levels and linking order.
> >
> > While reading the thread [1] that Alexander Holler started with his
> > series to make probing order deterministic, it occurred to me that it
> > should be possible to achieve the same by probing devices as they are
> > referenced by other devices.
> >
> > This basically reuses the information that is already implicit in the
> > probe() implementations, saving us from refactoring existing drivers or
> > adding information to DTBs.
> >
> > During review of v1 of this series Linus Walleij suggested that it
> > should be the device driver core to make sure that dependencies are
> > ready before probing a device. I gave this idea a try [2] but Mark Brown
> > pointed out to the logic duplication between the resource acquisition
> > and dependency discovery code paths (though I think it's fairly minor).
> >
> > To address that code duplication I experimented with Arnd's devm_probe
> > [3] concept of having drivers declare their dependencies instead of
> > acquiring them during probe, and while it worked [4], I don't think we
> > end up winning anything when compared to just probing devices on-demand
> > from resource getters.
> >
> > One remaining objection is to the "sprinkling" of calls to
> > of_device_probe() in the resource getters of each subsystem, but I think
> > it's the right thing to do given that the storage of resources is
> > currently subsystem-specific.
> >
> > We could avoid the above by moving resource storage into the core, but I
> > don't think there's a compelling case for that.
> >
> > I have tested this on boards with Tegra, iMX.6, Exynos, Rockchip and
> > OMAP SoCs, and these patches were enough to eliminate all the deferred
> > probes (except one in PandaBoard because omap_dma_system doesn't have a
> > firmware node as of yet).
> >
> > Have submitted a branch [5][6][7] with these patches on top of today's
> > linux-next (20150921) to and I don't see any issues that
> > could be caused by them.
> >
> > With this series I get the kernel to output to the panel in 0.5s,
> > instead of 2.8s.
> I think we're pretty close other than some minor comments. I would like
> to see ack's from Greg and some reviewed-bys from others. The subsystem
> changes are minor and there has been plenty of chance to comment, so I
> don't think acks from all subsystems are needed.
> Your branch is based on -next. Is there any dependence on something in
> -next? I want to get this into -next soon, but need a branch not based
> on -next. Please send me a pull request with the collected acks and
> minor comments I have addressed.

Let me review this on Monday and I'll let you know...


greg k-h
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at