Am 2020-05-23 00:21, schrieb Saravana Kannan:
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 11:41 AM Michael Walle michael@walle.cc wrote:
Am Mon, 18 May 2020 23:30:00 -0700 schrieb Saravana Kannan saravanak@google.com:
When SYNC_STATE_ONLY support was added in commit 05ef983e0d65 ("driver core: Add device link support for SYNC_STATE_ONLY flag"), device_link_add() incorrectly skipped adding the new SYNC_STATE_ONLY device link to the supplier's and consumer's "device link" list.
This causes multiple issues:
- The device link is lost forever from driver core if the caller didn't keep track of it (caller typically isn't expected to). This
is a memory leak.
- The device link is also never visible to any other code path after device_link_add() returns.
If we fix the "device link" list handling, that exposes a bunch of issues.
- The device link "status" state management code rightfully doesn't
handle the case where a DL_FLAG_MANAGED device link exists between a supplier and consumer, but the consumer manages to probe successfully before the supplier. The addition of DL_FLAG_SYNC_STATE_ONLY links break this assumption. This causes device_links_driver_bound() to throw a warning when this happens.
Since DL_FLAG_SYNC_STATE_ONLY device links are mainly used for creating proxy device links for child device dependencies and aren't useful once the consumer device probes successfully, this patch just deletes DL_FLAG_SYNC_STATE_ONLY device links once its consumer device probes. This way, we avoid the warning, free up some memory and avoid complicating the device links "status" state management code.
- Creating a DL_FLAG_STATELESS device link between two devices that
already have a DL_FLAG_SYNC_STATE_ONLY device link will result in the DL_FLAG_STATELESS flag not getting set correctly. This patch also fixes this.
Lastly, this patch also fixes minor whitespace issues.
My board triggers the WARN_ON(link->status != DL_STATE_CONSUMER_PROBE);
Full bootlog:
[..]
Thanks for the log and report. I haven't spent too much time thinking about this, but can you give this a shot? https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200520043626.181820-1-saravanak@google.com/
I've already tried that, as this is already in linux-next. Doesn't fix it, though.
-michael