On Thursday, 9 August 2018 13:45:41 MSK Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 02:30:47PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> > On Friday, 3 August 2018 13:50:55 MSK Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 06:08:07PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> > > > From time to time new bugs are popping up, causing some host1x client
> > > > to
> > > > fail its initialization. Currently a single clients initialization
> > > > failure
> > > > causes whole host1x device registration to fail, as a result a single
> > > > DRM
> > > > sub-device initialization failure makes whole DRM initialization to
> > > > fail.
> > > > Let's ignore clients initialization failure, as a result display panel
> > > > lights up even if some DRM clients (say GR2D or VIC) fail to
> > > > initialize.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <dig...@gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > drivers/gpu/host1x/bus.c | 18 +++++++-----------
> > > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > This is actually done on purpose. I can't think of a case where we would
> > > actively like to keep a half-broken DRM device operational. The errors
> > > that you're talking about should only happen during development,
> > [only in a perfect world]
> gr2d and VIC are fairly deterministic. What are the errors you are
> seeing that cause initialization failure?
Right now there are no specific errors. There is only a known trouble with the
ARM_DMA_USE_IOMMU, but that causes to fail all of the clients.
> Note that it is possible for
> these devices to malfunction even if initialization succeeds. A failure
> to initialize can only happen if there's something wrong in the device
> tree, firmware is missing (in case of VIC) or a regression was
> introduced in some subsystem that causes a failure (maybe deferred probe
> or something similar).
A missing firmware is an actual good example. Though can't VIC driver be
changed to load firmware at the time of a its first use by userspace? It
should be very annoying that kernel driver forces you to churn with initramfs.
> > > and the
> > > device not showing up is a pretty good indicator that something is wrong
> > > as opposed to everything booting normally and then getting some cryptic
> > > error at runtime because one of the clients didn't initialize.
> > If machine doesn't have a serial port and it doesn't have ssh server
> > running or network doesn't come up, you'll end up with a completely
> > dysfunctional piece of hardware. Hence there is no chance for you to even
> > check what is wrong. The argument about a cryptic error doesn't make much
> > sense, you have to improve your runtime as well (and you'll get a error
> > message in the kernels log).
> You make a good point here. I'm not aware of any devices we support in
> the kernel that don't have a serial console, but that doesn't mean the
> kernel could be used on an "unsupported" device that doesn't have one.
AFAIK, enabling serial on AC100 require soldering iron.
> > > From my perspective, all clients should always be operational in
> > > whatever baseline version you use. If it isn't that's a bug that should
> > > be fixed. Ideally those bugs should get fixed before making it into a
> > > baseline version (mainline, linux-next, ...), so that this never impacts
> > > even developers, unless they break it themselves, in which case refusing
> > > to register the DRM device is a pretty good incentive to fix it.
> > Sounds like you're assuming that only kernel developers are supposed to
> > use
> > Tegra, though at least (for now) for upstream it is kinda true. Of course
> > that could be changed ;-)
> That's not at all what I'm saying. What I am saying is that we should
> make it difficult for developers to break the kernel in a way that would
> put users into a position that is difficult to get themselves out of. If
> we refuse to register the complete DRM device in case some subdevice
> fails to initialize we increase the chances of developers noticing and
> fixing it.
> If all we do on failure is output an error message, it's very likely to
> go unnoticed. Developers are likely to check specifically the
> functionality that they're working on and ignore failures that they may
> have caused in other parts of the code as a side-effect of their current
I can try to help with improving of your automated testing suite, if you'll
make it accessible to the public.
> Perhaps a good middle ground would be to turn initialization failures
> into WARN_ON() to increase the chances of them getting notified and then
> continue on a best effort basis in the hopes of having enough
> initialized to get a message to users.
Good to me, I'll make v2.
> Another alternative would be to
> mark essential subdevices (such as the display controller) so that only
> they will cause failure to register the whole DRM device.
I don't think that making some subdevice more valuable than the others is a
feasible approach, how you are going to differentiate what of the two display
controllers is more important than the other.
dri-devel mailing list