LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Cc: milo.kim@ti.com, Axel Lin <axel.lin@ingics.com>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>,
	Javier Martinez Canillas <javier.martinez@collabora.co.uk>,
	Paul Stewart <pstew@chromium.org>,
	"stable@vger.kernel.org" <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: core: Fix enable GPIO reference counting
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 14:23:11 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150303142311.GT21293@sirena.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAD=FV=VDC_UbU43xWniTnqaN8Hz+1iYmwMLaAE4j3=qSq-jp4A@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2553 bytes --]

On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 01:13:56PM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:

> > Looking at the code it seems that you're adding checks to skip calls in
> > the standard enable and disable paths but not touching other paths,
> > based on this patch by itself I can't tell if this is a good idea or
> > not.  It certainly doesn't feel robust - if we're missing reference
> > counting skipping operations seems likely to lead to other bugs popping
> > up elsewhere when the other user that isn't doing a disable currently
> > decides to start doing so.

> I guess it depends on whether _regulator_do_enable() on an
> already-enabled rdev is supposed to be a noop or not.  My assumption
> was that it was supposed to be a noop with reference counting handled
> by _regulator_enable().

Yes, that's the point.

> My assumption is that regulator drivers themselves shouldn't do
> reference counting.  That is: if you call
> rdev->desc->ops->enable(rdev) twice you should not have to call
> rdev->desc->ops->disable(rdev) twice to disable.  Right?  That means
> my fix is making the "ena_pin" symmetric to how normal regulator
> drivers work.

> The refcounting being skipped by my patch is refcounting that's used
> only when the same GPIO is shared by more than one regulator.  That
> is, if "vcc_a" uses GPIO1 and "vcc_b" also uses "GPIO1" we need
> refcounting.  GPIO1 will be in the "on" state if either vcc_a or vcc_b
> is on.  The problem came in because _regulator_do_enable() was
> incrementing the shared refcount every time it was called even if the
> specific regulator was already on.

This is all analysis which should have been in the changelog...
possibly not quite so verbosely but it should be there.

> Anyway, I looked at Javier's patch and it's also fine / reasonable.
> ...and in fact I would argue that possibly we could take both patches.
> Javier's patch eliminates the one known place where
> _regulator_do_enable() is called for an already-enabled regulator and
> my patch means that if someone else adds a new call we won't end up
> back in this same subtle bug.  I'm happy to update the CL desc to make
> it more obvious if you'd like.

Yes, the changelog definitely needs to be *much* clearer.  Especially
for things like locking and reference counting the changelog needs to
explain what the fix is and why it's safe, without that working it is a
lot harder to do a review as the reviewer needs to go back and check
that everything has been thought through properly.

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2015-03-03 14:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-02-27 19:41 Doug Anderson
2015-02-27 20:08 ` Greg KH
2015-02-27 21:01 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2015-03-02 18:57   ` Mark Brown
2015-03-02 20:21     ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2015-03-03 14:24       ` Mark Brown
2015-03-02 18:47 ` Mark Brown
2015-03-02 21:13   ` Doug Anderson
2015-03-03 14:23     ` Mark Brown [this message]
2015-03-03 23:21       ` Doug Anderson
2015-03-04 11:27         ` Mark Brown
2015-03-04 17:13           ` Doug Anderson

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20150303142311.GT21293@sirena.org.uk \
    --to=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=axel.lin@ingics.com \
    --cc=dianders@chromium.org \
    --cc=dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com \
    --cc=javier.martinez@collabora.co.uk \
    --cc=lgirdwood@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=milo.kim@ti.com \
    --cc=olof@lixom.net \
    --cc=pstew@chromium.org \
    --cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH] regulator: core: Fix enable GPIO reference counting' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).