Re: Fixing the devicetree of Rock 5 Model B (and possibly others)

[Pratham Patel]

On Wed Apr 3, 2024 at 7:22 PM IST, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 01:03:07AM +0000, Pratham Patel wrote:
> > > > > Also, can you give the output of <debugfs>/devices_deferred for the
> > > > > good vs bad case?
> > > >
> > > > I can't provide you with requested output from the bad case, since the
> > > > kernel never moves past this to an initramfs rescue shell, but following
> > > > is the output from v6.8.1 (**with aforementioned patch reverted**).
> > > >
> > > > # cat /sys/kernel/debug/devices_deferred
> > > > fc400000.usb    platform: wait for supplier /phy@fed90000/usb3-port
> > > > 1-0022  typec_fusb302: cannot register tcpm port
> > > > fc000000.usb    platform: wait for supplier /phy@fed80000/usb3-port
> > > >
> > > > It seems that v6.8.2 works _without needing to revert the patch_. I will
> > > > have to look into this sometime this week but it seems like
> > > > a8037ceb8964 (arm64: dts: rockchip: drop rockchip,trcm-sync-tx-only from rk3588 i2s)
> > > > seems to be the one that fixed the root issue. I will have to test it
> > > > sometime later this week.
> > >
> > > Ok, once you find the patch that fixes things, let me know too.
> >
> > Will do!
>
> FWIW the v6.8.1 kernel referenced above is definitely patched, since
> upstream's Rock 5B DT does neither describe fusb302, nor the USB
> port it is connected to.
>
> We have a few Rock 5B in Kernel CI and upstream boots perfectly
> fine:
>
> https://lava.collabora.dev/scheduler/device_type/rk3588-rock-5b

Hmm, weird then. I can confirm that v6.8.1 doesn't _always_ boot. It
boots some times but still fails a majority of times. There is a
2 out of 10 chance that v6.8.1 will not boot. If you keep rebooting
enough times, you might get it to boot but the next boot is
likely to be borked. :(

That said, v6.8.2 might still have the same issue, but the probably of a
failed boot might be _lesser_ than v6.8.1 (from what I saw). I will
verify that behaviour sometime tomorrow or day after tomorrow.

>
> So it could be one of your downstream patches, which is introducing
> this problem.

I thought so too. So I built a vanilla kernel from the release tarball
of v6.8.1, using GCC + arm64 defconfig. I also tried using LLVM just in
case but noticed the same result.

 -- Pratham Patel