Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 12:04:05 PM Alan Stern wrote: > On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, Mark Brown wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:40:03AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > > > > Furthermore, that applies only to devices that use synchronous suspend. > > > Async suspend is becoming common, and

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Michael Turquette wrote: > Quoting Rafael J. Wysocki (2015-10-25 06:54:39) >> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 12:06 AM, Mark Brown wrote: >> > On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 04:17:12PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> > >> >> Well, I'm not quite sure why exactly everyone is

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On 26 October 2015 at 11:51, Michael Turquette wrote: > Quoting Rafael J. Wysocki (2015-10-25 06:54:39) >> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 12:06 AM, Mark Brown wrote: >> > On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 04:17:12PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> > >> >> Well, I'm not quite sure why exactly everyone is so

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

Quoting Rafael J. Wysocki (2015-10-25 06:54:39) > On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 12:06 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 04:17:12PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > >> Well, I'm not quite sure why exactly everyone is so focused on probing > >> here. > > > > Probe deferral is really

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

Quoting Rafael J. Wysocki (2015-10-25 06:54:39) > On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 12:06 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 04:17:12PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > >> Well, I'm not quite sure why exactly everyone is so focused on probing > >> here. > > > >

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Michael Turquette wrote: > Quoting Rafael J. Wysocki (2015-10-25 06:54:39) >> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 12:06 AM, Mark Brown wrote: >> > On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 04:17:12PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> > >> >>

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 12:04:05 PM Alan Stern wrote: > On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, Mark Brown wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:40:03AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > > > > Furthermore, that applies only to devices that use synchronous suspend. > > > Async suspend is becoming common, and

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On 26 October 2015 at 11:51, Michael Turquette wrote: > Quoting Rafael J. Wysocki (2015-10-25 06:54:39) >> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 12:06 AM, Mark Brown wrote: >> > On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 04:17:12PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> > >> >> Well, I'm

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 02:54:39PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 12:06 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > > There's also the understanding people had that the order things get > > bound changes the ordering for some of the other cases (perhaps it's a > > good idea to do that, it

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On 10/23/2015 10:45 AM, Tim Bird wrote: I've been worried about DT overhead adding to boot time for a while. And IMHO probe deferral is just about the lamest way to solve boot order dependencies I can imagine, from a computer science perspective. (Well, there's a certain elegance to it, but it's

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 12:06 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 04:17:12PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> Well, I'm not quite sure why exactly everyone is so focused on probing here. > > Probe deferral is really noisy even if it's working fine on a given > system so it's

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 12:06 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 04:17:12PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> Well, I'm not quite sure why exactly everyone is so focused on probing here. > > Probe deferral is really noisy even if it's working fine on a given >

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 02:54:39PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 12:06 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > > There's also the understanding people had that the order things get > > bound changes the ordering for some of the other cases (perhaps it's a > > good

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On 10/23/2015 10:45 AM, Tim Bird wrote: I've been worried about DT overhead adding to boot time for a while. And IMHO probe deferral is just about the lamest way to solve boot order dependencies I can imagine, from a computer science perspective. (Well, there's a certain elegance to it, but it's

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 04:17:12PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Well, I'm not quite sure why exactly everyone is so focused on probing here. Probe deferral is really noisy even if it's working fine on a given system so it's constantly being highlighted to people in a way that other issues

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:53 PM, Frank Rowand wrote: > I have been defaulting to the position that has been asserted by > the device tree maintainters, that probe deferrals work just fine > for at least the majority of cases (and is the message I have been > sharing in my conference presentations

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Friday, October 23, 2015 11:34:34 AM Rob Herring wrote: > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Tim Bird wrote: > > On 10/22/2015 11:53 AM, Frank Rowand wrote: > >> On 10/22/2015 7:44 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:05:11AM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: >

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Friday, October 23, 2015 11:34:34 AM Rob Herring wrote: > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Tim Bird wrote: > > On 10/22/2015 11:53 AM, Frank Rowand wrote: > >> On 10/22/2015 7:44 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> On Thu, Oct 22,

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:53 PM, Frank Rowand wrote: > I have been defaulting to the position that has been asserted by > the device tree maintainters, that probe deferrals work just fine > for at least the majority of cases (and is the message I have been > sharing in my

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 04:17:12PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Well, I'm not quite sure why exactly everyone is so focused on probing here. Probe deferral is really noisy even if it's working fine on a given system so it's constantly being highlighted to people in a way that other issues

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Tim Bird wrote: > On 10/22/2015 11:53 AM, Frank Rowand wrote: >> On 10/22/2015 7:44 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:05:11AM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: But that's moot currently because Greg believes that the time spent

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On 10/22/2015 11:53 AM, Frank Rowand wrote: > On 10/22/2015 7:44 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:05:11AM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: >>> But that's moot currently because Greg believes that the time spent >>> probing devices at boot time could be reduced enough so

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On 10/22/2015 09:26 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:53:31AM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote: >> On 10/22/2015 7:44 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:05:11AM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: But that's moot currently because Greg believes that

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On 10/22/2015 09:26 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:53:31AM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote: >> On 10/22/2015 7:44 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:05:11AM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: But that's moot currently

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On 10/22/2015 11:53 AM, Frank Rowand wrote: > On 10/22/2015 7:44 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:05:11AM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: >>> But that's moot currently because Greg believes that the time spent >>> probing devices at boot time

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Tim Bird wrote: > On 10/22/2015 11:53 AM, Frank Rowand wrote: >> On 10/22/2015 7:44 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:05:11AM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: But that's moot

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 04:02:13PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > If it was such a problem, then in the _eight_ days that this has been > discussed so far, _someone_ would have sent some data showing the > problem. I think the fact is, there is no data. > Someone prove me wrong.

Re: Alternative approach to solve the deferred probe (was: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing)

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 04:46:56PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > Something like this. I haven't put a lot of effort into it to change all > the places which return an -EPROBE_DEFER, and it also looks like we need > some helpers to report when we have only an device_node (or should

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:53:31AM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote: > On 10/22/2015 7:44 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:05:11AM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > >> But that's moot currently because Greg believes that the time spent > >> probing devices at boot time

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On 10/22/2015 7:44 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:05:11AM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: >> But that's moot currently because Greg believes that the time spent >> probing devices at boot time could be reduced enough so that the order >> in which devices are probed

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 07:44:05AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:05:11AM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > > Given that downstreams are already carrying as many hacks as they > > could think of to speed total boot up, I think this is effectively > > telling them to

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:05:11AM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > But that's moot currently because Greg believes that the time spent > probing devices at boot time could be reduced enough so that the order > in which devices are probed becomes irrelevant. IME that would have to > be under 200ms

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:05:11AM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > On 21 October 2015 at 23:50, Frank Rowand wrote: > > On 10/21/2015 2:12 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Frank Rowand > >> wrote: > >>> On 10/21/2015 9:27 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Oct 21,

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On 22 October 2015 at 02:54, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 06:21:55 PM Tomeu Vizoso wrote: >> On 20 October 2015 at 18:04, Alan Stern wrote: >> > On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, Mark Brown wrote: >> > >> >> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:40:03AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: >> >> >> >> >

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On 21 October 2015 at 23:50, Frank Rowand wrote: > On 10/21/2015 2:12 PM, Rob Herring wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Frank Rowand wrote: >>> On 10/21/2015 9:27 AM, Mark Brown wrote: On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 08:59:51AM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote: > On 10/19/2015 5:34 AM, Tomeu

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On 10/22/2015 7:44 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:05:11AM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: >> But that's moot currently because Greg believes that the time spent >> probing devices at boot time could be reduced enough so that the order >> in

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:53:31AM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote: > On 10/22/2015 7:44 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:05:11AM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > >> But that's moot currently because Greg believes that the time spent > >>

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On 22 October 2015 at 02:54, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 06:21:55 PM Tomeu Vizoso wrote: >> On 20 October 2015 at 18:04, Alan Stern wrote: >> > On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, Mark Brown wrote: >> > >> >> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at

Re: Alternative approach to solve the deferred probe (was: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing)

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 04:46:56PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > Something like this. I haven't put a lot of effort into it to change all > the places which return an -EPROBE_DEFER, and it also looks like we need > some helpers to report when we have only an device_node (or should

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 04:02:13PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > If it was such a problem, then in the _eight_ days that this has been > discussed so far, _someone_ would have sent some data showing the > problem. I think the fact is, there is no data. > Someone prove me wrong.

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On 21 October 2015 at 23:50, Frank Rowand wrote: > On 10/21/2015 2:12 PM, Rob Herring wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Frank Rowand wrote: >>> On 10/21/2015 9:27 AM, Mark Brown wrote: On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 08:59:51AM -0700, Frank

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:05:11AM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > But that's moot currently because Greg believes that the time spent > probing devices at boot time could be reduced enough so that the order > in which devices are probed becomes irrelevant. IME that would

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:05:11AM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > On 21 October 2015 at 23:50, Frank Rowand wrote: > > On 10/21/2015 2:12 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Frank Rowand > >> wrote: > >>> On 10/21/2015 9:27

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 07:44:05AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:05:11AM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > > Given that downstreams are already carrying as many hacks as they > > could think of to speed total boot up, I think this is

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 06:21:55 PM Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > On 20 October 2015 at 18:04, Alan Stern wrote: > > On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, Mark Brown wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:40:03AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > >> > >> > Furthermore, that applies only to devices that use synchronous

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 10:55:14 AM Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Rafael, > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:34 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 09:15:01 AM Rob Herring wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 2:56 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki > >> wrote: > >> > ACPI uses

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On 10/21/2015 2:12 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Frank Rowand wrote: >> On 10/21/2015 9:27 AM, Mark Brown wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 08:59:51AM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote: On 10/19/2015 5:34 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: >>> > To be clear, I was saying that

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Frank Rowand wrote: > On 10/21/2015 9:27 AM, Mark Brown wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 08:59:51AM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote: >>> On 10/19/2015 5:34 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: >> To be clear, I was saying that this series should NOT affect total boot

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:18:08AM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote: > On 10/21/2015 9:27 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > > Overall boot time and time to get some individual built in component up > > and running aren't the same thing - what this'll do is get things up > > more in the link order of the leaf

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On 10/21/2015 9:27 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 08:59:51AM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote: >> On 10/19/2015 5:34 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > >>> To be clear, I was saying that this series should NOT affect total >>> boot times much. > >> I'm confused. If I understood correctly,

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 08:59:51AM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote: > On 10/19/2015 5:34 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > > To be clear, I was saying that this series should NOT affect total > > boot times much. > I'm confused. If I understood correctly, improving boot time was > the key justification for

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On 10/19/2015 5:34 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > On 18 October 2015 at 21:53, Mark Brown wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 12:37:57PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 08:29:31PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:57:50PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

Hi Rafael, On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:34 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 09:15:01 AM Rob Herring wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 2:56 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki >> wrote: >> > ACPI uses platform devices too. In fact, ACPI device objects are >> > enumerated as >> >

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

Sorry to enter this thread a bit late. About the number of probe deferred messages, I proposed a simple patch to reduce them: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/8/20/218 I was wondering how many messages this patch could save... -- Ken ar c'hentañ | ** Breizh ha Linux atav! ** Jef

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 08:59:51AM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote: > On 10/19/2015 5:34 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > > To be clear, I was saying that this series should NOT affect total > > boot times much. > I'm confused. If I understood correctly, improving boot time was > the key justification for

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On 10/19/2015 5:34 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > On 18 October 2015 at 21:53, Mark Brown wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 12:37:57PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 08:29:31PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:57:50PM -0700,

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On 10/21/2015 9:27 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 08:59:51AM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote: >> On 10/19/2015 5:34 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > >>> To be clear, I was saying that this series should NOT affect total >>> boot times much. > >> I'm confused. If I understood correctly,

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:18:08AM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote: > On 10/21/2015 9:27 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > > Overall boot time and time to get some individual built in component up > > and running aren't the same thing - what this'll do is get things up > > more in the link order of the leaf

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Frank Rowand wrote: > On 10/21/2015 9:27 AM, Mark Brown wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 08:59:51AM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote: >>> On 10/19/2015 5:34 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: >> To be clear, I was saying that this series should NOT

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On 10/21/2015 2:12 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Frank Rowand wrote: >> On 10/21/2015 9:27 AM, Mark Brown wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 08:59:51AM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote: On 10/19/2015 5:34 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: >>> > To be

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 10:55:14 AM Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Rafael, > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:34 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 09:15:01 AM Rob Herring wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 2:56 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 06:21:55 PM Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > On 20 October 2015 at 18:04, Alan Stern wrote: > > On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, Mark Brown wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:40:03AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > >> > >> > Furthermore, that applies only to

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

Sorry to enter this thread a bit late. About the number of probe deferred messages, I proposed a simple patch to reduce them: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/8/20/218 I was wondering how many messages this patch could save... -- Ken ar c'hentañ | ** Breizh ha Linux atav! ** Jef

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

Hi Rafael, On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:34 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 09:15:01 AM Rob Herring wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 2:56 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki >> wrote: >> > ACPI uses platform devices too. In fact, ACPI device

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 08:35:28 PM Mark Brown wrote: > > --7fVr/IRGAG9sAW4J > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Disposition: inline > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 01:14:46PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > On Tue, 20 Oct 2015,

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 09:15:01 AM Rob Herring wrote: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 2:56 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Monday, October 19, 2015 05:58:40 PM Rob Herring wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki > >> wrote: > >> > On Monday, October 19, 2015 10:58:25

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 01:14:46PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > > This iteration of the series would make this quite easy, as > > dependencies are calculated before probes are attempted: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/6/17/311 > But what Rafael is

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > On 20 October 2015 at 18:04, Alan Stern wrote: > > On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, Mark Brown wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:40:03AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > >> > >> > Furthermore, that applies only to devices that use synchronous suspend. > >> >

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On 20 October 2015 at 18:04, Alan Stern wrote: > On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, Mark Brown wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:40:03AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: >> >> > Furthermore, that applies only to devices that use synchronous suspend. >> > Async suspend is becoming common, and there the only

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:40:03AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > > Furthermore, that applies only to devices that use synchronous suspend. > > Async suspend is becoming common, and there the only restrictions are > > parent-child relations plus whatever

Re: Alternative approach to solve the deferred probe (was: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing)

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 06:21:40PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Russell, > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux > wrote: > >> > What you can do is print those devices which have failed to probe at > >> > late_initcall() time - possibly augmenting that with reports

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:40:03AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > Furthermore, that applies only to devices that use synchronous suspend. > Async suspend is becoming common, and there the only restrictions are > parent-child relations plus whatever explicit requirements that drivers > impose by

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, Rob Herring wrote: > > The probe ordering is not the entire picture, though. > > > > Even if you get the probe ordering right, the problem is going to show up in > > multiple other places: system suspend/resume, runtime PM, system shutdown, > > unbinding of drivers. In all

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 2:56 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday, October 19, 2015 05:58:40 PM Rob Herring wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki >> wrote: >> > On Monday, October 19, 2015 10:58:25 AM Rob Herring wrote: >> >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:29 AM, David

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Mon, 2015-10-19 at 16:43 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 04:29:40PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > > I don't know that there *is* a coherent plan here to address it > > all. > > > > Certainly, we *will* need subsystems to have firmware-specific > > knowledge

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Monday, October 19, 2015 05:58:40 PM Rob Herring wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Monday, October 19, 2015 10:58:25 AM Rob Herring wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:29 AM, David Woodhouse > >> wrote: > >> > On Mon, 2015-10-19 at 15:50 +0100, Mark

Re: gpiod API considerations [Was: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing]

Hello, [trimming list of recipients considerably because of changed topic] On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 08:47:21AM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 3:39 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux > wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 08:27:44PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > >> On Mon,

Re: gpiod API considerations [Was: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing]

Hello, [trimming list of recipients considerably because of changed topic] On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 08:47:21AM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 3:39 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux > wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 08:27:44PM +0200, Uwe

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Monday, October 19, 2015 05:58:40 PM Rob Herring wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Monday, October 19, 2015 10:58:25 AM Rob Herring wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:29 AM, David Woodhouse > >> wrote: > >>

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Mon, 2015-10-19 at 16:43 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 04:29:40PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > > I don't know that there *is* a coherent plan here to address it > > all. > > > > Certainly, we *will* need subsystems to have firmware-specific > > knowledge

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 2:56 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday, October 19, 2015 05:58:40 PM Rob Herring wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki >> wrote: >> > On Monday, October 19, 2015 10:58:25 AM Rob Herring wrote: >> >> On

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, Rob Herring wrote: > > The probe ordering is not the entire picture, though. > > > > Even if you get the probe ordering right, the problem is going to show up in > > multiple other places: system suspend/resume, runtime PM, system shutdown, > > unbinding of drivers. In all

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 01:14:46PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > > This iteration of the series would make this quite easy, as > > dependencies are calculated before probes are attempted: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/6/17/311 > But what Rafael is

Re: Alternative approach to solve the deferred probe (was: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing)

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 06:21:40PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Russell, > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux > wrote: > >> > What you can do is print those devices which have failed to probe at > >> > late_initcall() time - possibly

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:40:03AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > Furthermore, that applies only to devices that use synchronous suspend. > Async suspend is becoming common, and there the only restrictions are > parent-child relations plus whatever explicit requirements that drivers > impose by

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On 20 October 2015 at 18:04, Alan Stern wrote: > On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, Mark Brown wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:40:03AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: >> >> > Furthermore, that applies only to devices that use synchronous suspend. >> > Async suspend is becoming

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > On 20 October 2015 at 18:04, Alan Stern wrote: > > On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, Mark Brown wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:40:03AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > >> > >> > Furthermore, that applies only to devices that use

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:40:03AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > > Furthermore, that applies only to devices that use synchronous suspend. > > Async suspend is becoming common, and there the only restrictions are > > parent-child relations plus whatever

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 09:15:01 AM Rob Herring wrote: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 2:56 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Monday, October 19, 2015 05:58:40 PM Rob Herring wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki > >> wrote: > >>

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 08:35:28 PM Mark Brown wrote: > > --7fVr/IRGAG9sAW4J > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Disposition: inline > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 01:14:46PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > On Tue, 20 Oct 2015,

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 3:39 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 08:27:44PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: >> Hello, >> >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 04:43:24PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >> > It's a bit ironic that you've chosen GPIO as an example there. The

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday, October 19, 2015 10:58:25 AM Rob Herring wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:29 AM, David Woodhouse >> wrote: >> > On Mon, 2015-10-19 at 15:50 +0100, Mark Brown wrote: >> >> > But the point I'm making is that we are working

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Monday, October 19, 2015 10:58:25 AM Rob Herring wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:29 AM, David Woodhouse wrote: > > On Mon, 2015-10-19 at 15:50 +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > >> > But the point I'm making is that we are working towards *fixing* that, > >> > and *not* using DT-specific code in

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 08:27:44PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > Hello, > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 04:43:24PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > It's a bit ironic that you've chosen GPIO as an example there. The > > "new" GPIO API (the gpiod_* stuff) only has a fwnode way to get the

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

Hello, On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 04:43:24PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > It's a bit ironic that you've chosen GPIO as an example there. The > "new" GPIO API (the gpiod_* stuff) only has a fwnode way to get the > gpio descriptor. There's no of_* method. Without following all that

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 8:19 AM, Rob Herring wrote: > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Olof Johansson wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I've bisected boot failures in next-20151016 down to patches in this branch: >> >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 4:42 AM, Tomeu Vizoso >> wrote: >>> Tomeu Vizoso (20): >>>

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 06:21:40PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Russell, > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux > wrote: > >> > What you can do is print those devices which have failed to probe at > >> > late_initcall() time - possibly augmenting that with reports

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

Hi Russell, On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >> > What you can do is print those devices which have failed to probe at >> > late_initcall() time - possibly augmenting that with reports from >> > subsystems showing what resources are not available, but that's only

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 04:29:40PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Mon, 2015-10-19 at 15:50 +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > But the point I'm making is that we are working towards *fixing* that, > > > and *not* using DT-specific code in places where we should be using the > > > generic APIs. >

Re: [GIT PULL] On-demand device probing

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:29 AM, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Mon, 2015-10-19 at 15:50 +0100, Mark Brown wrote: >> > But the point I'm making is that we are working towards *fixing* that, >> > and *not* using DT-specific code in places where we should be using the >> > generic APIs. >> >> What is

  1   2   >