Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] drivers: bus: simple-pm-bus: Add support for probing simple bus only devices

[Saravana Kannan]

On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 2:15 AM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 3 Sept 2021 at 01:04, Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > The OF platform code sets up simple bus only devices (i.e. devices that
> > won't match with any other driver) to get probed by the simple-pm-bus to
> > keep fw_devlink from blocking probe() or sync_state() [1] callbacks of
> > other devices. There's no need to populate the child devices since the
> > OF platform code would do that anyway, so return early for these simple
> > bus only devices.
>
> This looks like a neat solution to our problem. Although, a few comments below.
>
> >
> > [1] - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAPDyKFo9Bxremkb1dDrr4OcXSpE0keVze94Cm=zrkOVxHHxBmQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Tested-by: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  drivers/bus/simple-pm-bus.c | 7 +++++++
> >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/bus/simple-pm-bus.c b/drivers/bus/simple-pm-bus.c
> > index 01a3d0cd08ed..91d52021b7f9 100644
> > --- a/drivers/bus/simple-pm-bus.c
> > +++ b/drivers/bus/simple-pm-bus.c
> > @@ -19,6 +19,13 @@ static int simple_pm_bus_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >         const struct of_dev_auxdata *lookup = dev_get_platdata(&pdev->dev);
> >         struct device_node *np = pdev->dev.of_node;
> >
> > +       /*
> > +        * These are transparent bus devices (not simple-pm-bus matches) that
> > +        * get populated automatically.  So, don't need to do anything more.
> > +        */
> > +       if (pdev->driver_override)
> > +               return 0;
>
> You need the same kind of check in simple_pm_bus_remove(), to avoid
> pm_runtime_disable(). At least for consistency.

Ack.

>
> > +
> >         dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "%s\n", __func__);
> >
> >         pm_runtime_enable(&pdev->dev);
> > --
> > 2.33.0.153.gba50c8fa24-goog
> >
>
> It also looks like we should flip the order of the patches in the
> series, to keep things bisectable.

Sorry I didn't get this. I'm not causing any compilation issues. Why
does this matter for bisecting?

-Saravana