Hi all,
On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 13:42:50 +0100 Mark Brown broonie@kernel.org wrote: [...]
with Arm laptops coming on the market it's becoming more of an issue so let's do something about it.
For the record: I try to run a stock distribution kernel (lots of modules) on an Olimex Teres-I. The PMIC driver is of course a module.
Am I the only one having problems with this change? I get
[ 11.917136] anx6345 0-0038: 0-0038 supply dvdd12-supply not found, using dummy regulator [ 11.917174] axp20x-rsb sunxi-rsb-3a3: AXP20x variant AXP803 found
Despite being loaded as a very early module, PMIC init ^^^ only starts now.
[ 11.928664] hub 1-0:1.0: 1 port detected [ 11.943230] anx6345 0-0038: 0-0038 supply dvdd25-supply not found, using dummy regulator
So far, so bad, but lucky me has an U-Boot which already enabled the display along with the relevant voltages in the proper sequence.
[ 11.981316] [drm] Found ANX6345 (ver. 170) eDP Transmitter
But much later on
[ 38.248573] dcdc4: disabling [ 38.268493] vcc-pd: disabling [ 38.288446] vdd-edp: disabling
screen goes dark and stays dark. Use count of the regulators is 0. I guess this is because the driver code had been returned the dummy instead?
It's a mobile device so in principle there is nothing wrong with powering down unused circuitry, and always-on is not an option. Am I correct to perceive this solution as not 100% mature yet? The anx6345 driver in particular needs to do a little "voltage dance" with specific timing on the real regulators should the device come up really unpowered, so IMHO it's probably neccessary to return EPROBE_DEFER at least in this particular case and prepare the driver for it? Or what would be the real solution in this case?
Torsten
On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 01:52:33PM +0100, Torsten Duwe wrote:
On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 13:42:50 +0100 Mark Brown broonie@kernel.org wrote:
Am I the only one having problems with this change? I get
I've had no reports of any problems.
[ 11.917136] anx6345 0-0038: 0-0038 supply dvdd12-supply not found, using dummy regulator [ 11.917174] axp20x-rsb sunxi-rsb-3a3: AXP20x variant AXP803 found
Despite being loaded as a very early module, PMIC init ^^^ only starts now.
I'm very surprised that anything to do with resolving incomplete constraints would be affected by this change. The only thing we do in the defered bit of init is power off unused regulators which has no bearing on registration at all. The only thing that might have a bearing on this is marking the sytem as having full constraints but that's still directly in the initcall, not deferred.
But much later on
screen goes dark and stays dark. Use count of the regulators is 0. I guess this is because the driver code had been returned the dummy instead?
This is not new behaviour, all this change did was delay this. We've been powering off unused regulators for a bit over a decade.
Like I say this is not in any way new and pretty stable.
We power off regulators which aren't enabled by any driver and where we have permission from the constraints to change the state. If the regulator can't be powered off then it should be flagged as always-on in constraints, if a driver needs it the driver should be enabling the regulator.
I don't folow what you're saying about probe deferral here at all, sorry.
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 12:46:54PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
For me, this appeared first after upgrading from from 5.3.0-rc1 to 5.4.0-rc6. I guess the late initcall was executed before the regulator driver module got loaded? And now, with the 30s delay, the regulator driver is finally there? Would that explain it?
How exactly? I have been looking for deficiencies in the driver, but found devm_regulator_get() should actually do the right thing (use_count++). Is that correct, or am I missing something?
I don't folow what you're saying about probe deferral here at all, sorry.
I was worried about the regulator core handing out refs to the dummy regulator when the requesting driver wants to change the voltages next. I concluded the requesting device driver would have to wait until the real regulator driver was registered. But either this somehow works or my eDP bridge is still powered on correctly from U-Boot. What does the warning "... using dummy regulator" mean for the caller of regulator_get()? AFAICS the caller is then stuck with a reference to the dummy, correct?
Any hints welcome,
Torsten
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 05:41:01PM +0100, Torsten Duwe wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 12:46:54PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
This is not new behaviour, all this change did was delay this. We've been powering off unused regulators for a bit over a decade.
If the regulator driver wasn't loaded you'd not see the power off on late init, yes.
Regulators are enabled using the regulator_enable() call, if a driver hasn't called that and isn't for something like cpufreq where the regulator is expected to be always on then it should expect that power may be removed at any time, even if the core didn't do this another consumer sharing the supply could do the same. It's perfectly possible and normal for a driver to enable and disable a regulator at runtime, for example for power saving.
I don't folow what you're saying about probe deferral here at all, sorry.
I was worried about the regulator core handing out refs to the dummy regulator when the requesting driver wants to change the voltages next.
I don't follow at all, if a driver is calling regulator_get() and regulator_put() repeatedly at runtime around voltage changes then it sounds like the driver is extremely broken. Further, if a supply has a regulator provided in device tree then a dummy regulator will never be provided for it.
If a dummy regulator has been provided then there is no possibility that a real supply could be provided, there's not a firmware description of one. We use a dummy regulator to keep software working on the basis that it's unlikely that the device can operate without power but lacking any information on the regulator we can't actually control it.
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 04:56:51PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
Then this is the change I see, thanks for the confirmation.
Regulators are enabled using the regulator_enable() call,
Fine, the driver does that, but...
I'm afraid I must object here:
kernel: anx6345 0-0038: 0-0038 supply dvdd12-supply not found, using dummy regulator kernel: anx6345 0-0038: 0-0038 supply dvdd25-supply not found, using dummy regulator
DT has: dvdd25-supply = <®_dldo2>; dvdd12-supply = <®_dldo3>;
It's only that the regulator driver module has not fully loaded at that point.
That's what I figured. I was fancying some hash table for yet unkown regulators with callbacks to those who had asked. Or the EPROBE_DEFER to have them come back later. Maybe initrd barriers would help.
So is my understanding correct that with the above messages, the anx6345 driver will never be able to control those voltages for real? And additionally, the real regulator's use count will remain 0 unless there are other users (which there aren't)?
Again: this all didn't matter before this init completion code was moved to the right location. Power management wouldn't work, but at least the established voltages stayed on.
Torsten
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 08:40:12PM +0100, Torsten Duwe wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 04:56:51PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
It's only that the regulator driver module has not fully loaded at that point.
We substitute in the dummy regulator in regulator_get() if regulator_dev_lookup() returns -ENODEV and a few other conditions are satisfied. When lookup up via DT regulator_dev_lookup() will use of_find_regulator_by_node() to look up the regulator, if that lookup fails it returns -EPROBE_DEFER. Until we get to of_find_regulator_by_node() we're just looking to see if nodes exist, not to see if anything is registered. What mechanism do you see causing issues? If there's something going wrong here it's in that area.
AFAICS the caller is then stuck with a reference to the dummy, correct?
Like I've been saying attempts to get a regulator will defer unless the core can confirm that the regulator can't be resolved.
I don't know what an initrd barrier is but anything that relies on initrds not going to help with trying to figure out when userspace is ready since there's no requirement for userspace to use an initrd at all let alone put all modules in there.
If the consumer driver is gets a reference to the dummy regulator it's going to continue to have a reference to the dummy regulator.
As far as I can tell whatever is going on with your system it's only ever been working through luck. Without any specific references to what's going on in the system it's hard to tell what might be happening, it looks like you're working with out of tree code here so it's possible there's something going on in there and your use of non-standard terminology makes it a bit hard to follow.
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 08:29:49PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
Note these 4 lines...
First of all: thanks a lot! This has put me onto the right track.
As far as I can tell whatever is going on with your system it's only ever been working through luck.
Yes indeed. It turned out the regulators were still on from U-Boot and that code never worked.
Without any specific references to what's going on in the system it's hard to tell what might be happening,
Well, actually the 4 lines above give a good hint :) of_get_regulator() will look for "dvdd25-supply-supply". I'm fairly relieved that even you didn't spot this right away. The fix just went to dri-devel, you're Cc'ed. Unfortunately the documentation for this is buried in the git commit log.
For the record: I'm still convinced that the original change can uncover bugs unexpectedly, and is not suited for -stable.
Thanks for the help, and sorry for the non-standard nomenclature.
Torsten
On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 04:27:00PM +0100, Torsten Duwe wrote:
Glad you got to the bottom of this! Like I said in reply to your fix (which I saw first) this is covered in the DT binding documentation for the regultaor API.
For the record: I'm still convinced that the original change can uncover bugs unexpectedly, and is not suited for -stable.
Yeah, it's definitely at the upper limit of what I consider safe for stable but it seems to fit the risk profile of what stable wants to include these days and there was demand for it from people working on DT based laptops and desktops.
linux-stable-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Mark Brown -
Torsten Duwe