Hi,
On Wed, Feb 04, 2026 at 04:14:48PM +0800, Coresight ML wrote:
[ 2.092243] /soc/funnel@d9042000: Fixed dependency cycle(s) with /soc/etf@d9043000 [ 2.099843] /soc/funnel@d9042000: Fixed dependency cycle(s) with /soc/etf@d9043000 [ 2.107359] /soc/etf@d9043000: Fixed dependency cycle(s) with /soc/funnel@d9042000 [ 2.114899] /soc/etf@d9043000: Fixed dependency cycle(s) with /soc/etr@d9044000 [ 2.122234] /soc/etf@d9043000: Fixed dependency cycle(s) with /soc/etr@d9044000 [ 2.129492] /soc/etr@d9044000: Fixed dependency cycle(s) with /soc/etf@d9043000
[...]
## Questions
The kernel's fw_devlink mechanism detects and "fixes" these cycles, but can I avoid them in the device tree definition?
The system works correctly despite the warnings, but I'd like to understand the proper way to define the topology to avoid these messages.
Thank you for your guidance!
I roughly went through the kernel code:
pr_info("%pfwf: Fixed dependency cycle(s) with %pfwf\n", link->consumer, sup_handle);
This is not a warning but a info for fwnode link cycle. I checked my Juno board which has the similiar logs.
So I concluded the "Fixed dependency cycle(s)" logs are expected for CoreSight DT binding.
Thanks, Leo