Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [TECH TOPIC] Addressing complex dependencies and semantics (v2)

[Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@samsung.com>]

On 08/01/2016 05:43 PM, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> On 08/01/2016 05:34 PM, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
>> On 08/01/2016 04:54 PM, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
>>> On 08/01/2016 04:44 PM, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
>>>> On 08/01/2016 03:55 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>>>>> Em Mon, 1 Aug 2016 15:33:22 +0200
>>>>> Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de> escreveu:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 08/01/2016 03:21 PM, Hans Verkuil wrote:
>>>>>>> On 08/01/2016 03:09 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:  
>>>>>>>> On Friday 29 Jul 2016 12:13:03 Mark Brown wrote:  
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 09:45:55AM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote:  
>>>>>>>>>> My main problem is not so much with deferred probe (esp. for cyclic
>>>>>>>>>> dependencies it is a simple method of solving this, and simple is good).
>>>>>>>>>> My main problem is that you can't tell the system that driver A needs to
>>>>>>>>>> be probed after drivers B, C and D are probed first.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That would allow us to get rid of v4l2-async.c which is a horrible hack.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That code allows a bridge driver to wait until all dependent drivers are
>>>>>>>>>> probed. This really should be core functionality.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do other subsystems do something similar like
>>>>>>>>>> drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-async.c? Does anyone know?  
>>>>>>>>> ASoC does, it has an explicit card driver to join things together and
>>>>>>>>> that just defers probe until everything it needs is present.  This was
>>>>>>>>> originally open coded in ASoC but once deferred probe was implemented we
>>>>>>>>> converted to that.  
>>>>>>>> Asynchronous bindings of components, as done in ASoC, DRM and V4L2, is a 
>>>>>>>> problem largely solved (or rather hacked around), but I'm curious to know how 
>>>>>>>> ASoC handles device unbinding (due to device removal or manual unbinding 
>>>>>>>> through sysfs). With asynchronous binding we can more or less easily wait for 
>>>>>>>> all components to be present before creating circular dependencies, but 
>>>>>>>> breaking them to implement unbinding is an unsolved problem at least in V4L2.
>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> We need to prevent subdevice drivers from being unbound. It's easy enough to
>>>>>>> do that (set suppress_bind_attrs to true), we just never did that. It's been
>>>>>>> on my TODO list for ages to make a patch adding that flag...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can only unbind bridge drivers. Unbinding subdevs is pointless in general
>>>>>>> and should be prohibited. Perhaps in the future with dynamically reconfigurable
>>>>>>> video pipelines (FPGA) you want that, but then you need to do a lot of
>>>>>>> additional work. For everything we have today we should just set
>>>>>>> suppress_bind_attrs to true.  
>>>>>> suppress_bind_attrs is the lazy solution and as you pointed out does not
>>>>>> work too well for all cases.
>>>>> Agreed. 
>>>>>
>>>>> What we really need is a kind of "usage count" behavior to suppress
>>>>> unbinds, e. g. a device driver can be unbound only if any other driver
>>>>> using resources on it gets unbind first.
>>>>>
>>>>> That will solve most of unbind issues at the media subsystem.
>>>> When I was investigating issues with unbind sysfs attribute I have found
>>>> claim by Greg KH that unbind should be rather unavoidable, like in case
>>>> of hw removal - kernel is not able to prevent users from removing usb
>>>> device, even if it is in use.
>>>>
>>>> Assuming the claim is still valid, the only solution I see are callbacks
>>>> notifying resource consumers about removal of the resources.
>>> There are multiple options.
>>>
>>> One option, which I think is currently the most used option in the kernel,
>>> is to unregister the resource when the provider is removed, but keep the
>>> resource object alive as long as there are users. Any further operation on
>>> such object will fail with an error. This works to the point where things
>>> don't crash, but it wont function in any meaningful way. There is no way to
>>> automatically recover if the resource reappears.
>> For me it is not a real solution, it is just dirty workaround to just avoid
>> invalid pointers. It 'works' only because unbinding is rarely used.
>> For example, how the device is supposed to work if its regulator or clock
>> disappeared?
>>
>>> Other options are as you pointed out notifier callbacks that allows the
>>> resource use to be aware that a resource has disappeared and it might adjust
>>> and continue to function with limited functionality.
>>>
>>> Another option is to teach the device core about critical resource
>>> dependencies so that a consumer is automatically unbound by the core if any
>>> of its resource dependencies are unregistered. The device can also
>>> automatically be re-bound once the critical resources re-appear.
>> That would be OK only for critical resources.
>>
>>> The most likely solution is probably a mixture of all of them.
>> If we implement callbacks, we do not need other two 'options'.
> Having to manually register callbacks for every resource in every driver
> will result in a massive amount of boilerplate code. I'd rather avoid that.

You can use helper to monitor multiple resources in one callback - it
should not increase the code significantly. As I wrote in other e-mail I
send already RFC in which the code in the driver was even shorter
than before. See [1].

[1]: http://www.spinics.net/lists/dri-devel/msg73500.html
> In addition to that doing resource tracking at the framework level will help
> with probe ordering.
>
>

Could you elaborate more?


Regards
Andrzej