Hi Stephen,

On 2021-02-24 12:36, Stephen Boyd wrote:
Quoting ro...@codeaurora.org (2021-02-18 06:15:17)
Hi Stephen,

On 2021-01-13 12:24, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Roja Rani Yarubandi (2021-01-08 07:05:45)
>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-qcom-geni.c
>> b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-qcom-geni.c
>> index 214b4c913a13..c3f584795911 100644
>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-qcom-geni.c
>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-qcom-geni.c
>> @@ -375,6 +375,32 @@ static void geni_i2c_tx_msg_cleanup(struct
>> geni_i2c_dev *gi2c,
>>         }
>>  }
>> +static void geni_i2c_stop_xfer(struct geni_i2c_dev *gi2c)
>> +{
>> +       int ret;
>> +       u32 geni_status;
>> +       struct i2c_msg *cur;
>> +
>> +       /* Resume device, as runtime suspend can happen anytime during
>> transfer */
>> +       ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(gi2c->se.dev);
>> +       if (ret < 0) {
>> +               dev_err(gi2c->se.dev, "Failed to resume device: %d\n",
>> ret);
>> +               return;
>> +       }
>> +
>> +       geni_status = readl_relaxed(gi2c->se.base + SE_GENI_STATUS);
>> +       if (geni_status & M_GENI_CMD_ACTIVE) {
>> +               cur = gi2c->cur;
> Why don't we need to hold the spinlock gi2c::lock here?

I am not seeing any race here. May I know which race are you suspecting

Sorry there are long delays between posting and replies to my review
comments. It takes me some time to remember what we're talking about
because this patch has dragged on for many months.

Sorry for the delayed responses.

So my understanding is that gi2c::lock protects the 'cur' pointer. I
imagine this scenario might go bad

  CPU0                      CPU1
  ----                      ----
   ...                      geni_i2c_rx_one_msg()
                             gi2c->cur = cur1;
   cur = gi2c->cur;
   ...                       geni_i2c_tx_one_msg()
                             gi2c->cur = cur2;
    <uses cur2>
   if (cur->flags & I2C_M_RD)
    <uses cur1 for the condition and call; oops that's bad>

It's almost like we should combine the geni_i2c_abort_xfer() logic with
the rx/tx message cleanup functions so that it's all done under one
lock. Unfortunately it's complicated by the fact that there are various
completion waiting timeouts involved. Fun!

Thanks for the explanation. Fixed this possible race by protecting gi2c->cur and calling geni_i2c_abort_xfer() with adding another parameter to differentiate
from which sequence is the geni_i2c_abort_xfer() called and handle the
spin_lock/spin_unlock accordingly inside geni_i2c_abort_xfer()

But even after all that, I don't see how the geni_i2c_stop_xfer() puts a
stop to future calls to geni_i2c_rx_one_msg() or geni_i2c_tx_one_msg().

Now handled this by adding a bool variable "stop_xfer" in geni_i2c_dev struct, used to put stop to upcoming geni_i2c_rx_one_msg() and geni_i2c_tx_one_msg() calls
once we receive the shutdown call.

The hardware isn't disabled from what I can tell. The irq isn't
disabled, the clks aren't turned off, etc. What is to stop an i2c device
from trying to use the bus after this shutdown function is called? If
anything, this function looks like a "flush", where we flush out any
pending transfer. Where's the "plug" operation that prevents any future
operations from following this call?

We are turning off clocks and disabling irq in geni_i2c_runtime_suspend().

IIUC about shutdown sequence, during "remove" we will unplug the device with opposite calls to "probe's" plug operations example i2c_del_adapter(). For "shutdown", as system
is going to shutdown, there is no need of unplug operations to be done.

BTW, I see this is merged upstream. That's great, but it seems broken.
Please fix it or revert it out.

>> +               geni_i2c_abort_xfer(gi2c);
>> +               if (cur->flags & I2C_M_RD)
>> +                       geni_i2c_rx_msg_cleanup(gi2c, cur);
>> +               else
>> +                       geni_i2c_tx_msg_cleanup(gi2c, cur);
>> +       }
>> +
>> +       pm_runtime_put_sync_suspend(gi2c->se.dev);
>> +}
>> +
>>  static int geni_i2c_rx_one_msg(struct geni_i2c_dev *gi2c, struct
>> i2c_msg *msg,
>>                                 u32 m_param)
>>  {


Reply via email to