Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] driver core: fw_devlink: Add support for FWNODE_FLAG_BROKEN_PARENT

[Saravana Kannan]

On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 6:16 AM Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > I must admit, my main problem at the moment is -rc1 in two weeks
> > > time. It seems like a number of board with Ethernet switches will be
> > > broken, that worked before. phy-handle is not limited to switch
> > > drivers, it is also used for Ethernet drivers. So it could be, a
> > > number of Ethernet drivers are also going to be broken in -rc1?
> >
> > Again, in those cases, based on your FEC example, fw_devlink=on
> > actually improves things.
>
> Debatable. I did some testing. As expected some boards with Ethernet
> switches are now broken. Without fw_devlink=on, some boards are not
> optimal, but they actually work. With it, they are broken.
>
> I did a bisect, and they have been broken since:
>
> ea718c699055c8566eb64432388a04974c43b2ea is the first bad commit
> commit ea718c699055c8566eb64432388a04974c43b2ea
> Author: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date:   Tue Mar 2 13:11:32 2021 -0800
>
>     Revert "Revert "driver core: Set fw_devlink=on by default""
>
>     This reverts commit 3e4c982f1ce75faf5314477b8da296d2d00919df.
>
>     Since all reported issues due to fw_devlink=on should be addressed by
>     this series, revert the revert. fw_devlink=on Take II.
>
>     Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx>
>     Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210302211133.2244281-4-saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx
>     Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>  drivers/base/core.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> So however it is fixed, it needs to go into stable, not just -rc1.
>
> > Again, it's not a widespread problem as I explained before.
> > fw_devlink=on has been the default for 2 kernel versions now. With no
> > unfixed reported issues.
>
> Given that some Ethernet switches have been broken all that time, i
> wonder what else has been broken? Normally, the kernel which is
> release in December becomes the next LTS. It then gets picked up by
> the distros and more wide spread tested. So it could be, you get a
> flood of reports in January and February about things which are
> broken. This is why i don't think you should be relying on bug
> reports, you should be taking a more proactive stance and trying to
> analyse the DTB blobs.
>
> I will spend some time trying out your proposed fix. See if they are a
> quick fix for stable.

Hi Andrew,

Did you have a chance to try it out? I can fix up the commit text and
send out vN+1 of the patch if it works for you.

-Saravana