On Wednesday, March 05, 2014 02:05:50 PM Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 10:49:41AM +0800, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 12:00 AM, Mika Westerberg
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Sometimes it is useful to allow GPIO chips themselves to request GPIOs
> > > they
> > > own through gpiolib API. One usecase is ACPI ASL code that should be able
> > > to toggle GPIOs through GPIO operation regions.
> > >
> > > We can't really use gpio_request() and its counterparts because it will
> > > pin
> > > the module to the kernel forever (as it calls module_get()). Instead we
> > > provide a gpiolib internal functions gpiochip_request/free_own_desc() that
> > > work the same as gpio_request() but don't manipulate module refrence
> > > count.
> > >
> > > Since it's the GPIO chip driver who requests the GPIOs in the first place
> > > we can be sure that it cannot be unloaded without the driver knowing about
> > > that. Furthermore we only limit this functionality to be available only
> > > inside gpiolib.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Mika Westerberg <[email protected]>
> >
> > I fully trust you in doing the ACPI stuff in patches 2-n but on this patch
> > in particular I want Alexandre's review tag as well, as he's working
> > actively with the descriptor API and I don't want to add too many quirks
> > without his consent.
>
> Thanks for your trust :)
>
> > So Alexandre, what do you say about this?
>
> I'm about to send v2 of the series with Rafael's comments taken into
> account. However, I stumbled to another locking problem:
>
> I'm going to move taking the gpio_lock outside of __gpiod_request() and
> have __gpiod_request() to release that lock, so that we can call
> chip->request() safely.
>
> Since we are using _irqsave()/_irqrestore() versions, it means that I need
> to pass flags as a pointer from gpiod_request() to __gpiod_request() like:
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(&gpio_lock, flags);
> if (try_module_get(chip->owner)) {
> ret = __gpiod_request(desc, label, &flags);
Ouch. Sorry for overlooking that.
> ...
>
> Is that acceptable or can you guys suggest some alternative? One
> alternative that I can think about is to have __gpiod_request() to take the
> lock and move try_module_get() outside to gpiod_request():
>
> __gpiod_request()
> {
> unsigned long flags;
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(&gpio_lock, flags);
> ...
> }
>
> gpiod_request():
> {
> ...
> if (try_module_get(chip->owner)) {
> ret = __gpiod_request(desc, label);
> ...
> }
>
> Thoughts?
If that works, it would be better than passing the flags IMO.
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
