Re: [PATCH] Revert "bus: ti-sysc: Probe for l4_wkup and l4_cfg interconnect devices first"

[Andreas Kemnade]

Am Thu, 13 Mar 2025 20:42:23 +0000
schrieb "Sverdlin, Alexander" <alexander.sverdlin@xxxxxxxxxxx>:

> Hi Andreas!
> 
> On Thu, 2025-03-13 at 20:21 +0100, Andreas Kemnade wrote:
> > > This reverts commit 4700a00755fb5a4bb5109128297d6fd2d1272ee6.
> > > 
> > > It brakes target-module@2b300050 ("ti,sysc-omap2") probe on AM62x in a case
> > > when minimally-configured system tries to network-boot:
> > >   
> > brakes or breaks? To unterstand the severity of the issue...  
> 
> Thanks for the correction, it should have been "breaks"...
> 
> > > [    6.888776] probe of 2b300050.target-module returned 517 after 258 usecs
> > > [   17.129637] probe of 2b300050.target-module returned 517 after 708 usecs
> > > [   17.137397] platform 2b300050.target-module: deferred probe pending: (reason unknown)
> > > [   26.878471] Waiting up to 100 more seconds for network.
> > > 
> > > Arbitrary 10 deferrals is really not a solution to any problem.  
> > 
> > So there is a point where no more probe of anything pending are
> > triggered and therefore things are not probed?  
> 
> Because there is a point indeed (if we configure quite minimal set of drivers just
> enough to mount NFS) when deferred probes are not triggered any longer.
> 
> > > Stable mmc enumeration can be achiever by filling /aliases node properly
> > > (4700a00755fb commit's rationale).
> > >   
> > yes, it does not look like a clean solution. And we have the
> > proper aliases node in many places. What I am a bit wondering about is
> > what kind of sleeping dogs we are going to wake up by this revert. So I
> > think this should be tested a lot esp. about possible pm issues.
> > 
> > Not every dependency in the sysc probe area is properly defined.  
> 
> But the patch I propose to revert is really not a solution for missing
> dependencies on syscons. I'm fine with not propagating this to stable,
> but reverting in master should give enough time for older SoCs to test,
> WDYT?
>
I am not against your revert proposal and not against propagating it
to stable, I would just like to see some Tested-Bys before it gets
applied to anything. If anything nasty pops up, it should be solved in a
cleaner way then with the offending patch.

Regards,
Andreas