Re: [PATCH 02/10] mfd: cros_ec: IRQs for cros_ec should be optional
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014, Doug Anderson wrote:
From: Bill Richardson wfric...@chromium.org
Preparing the way for the LPC device, which is just a plaform_device without
interrupts.
Signed-off-by: Bill Richardson wfric...@chromium.org
Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson diand...@chromium.org
---
drivers/mfd/cros_ec.c | 26 +-
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mfd/cros_ec.c b/drivers/mfd/cros_ec.c
index 38fe9bf..bd6f936 100644
--- a/drivers/mfd/cros_ec.c
+++ b/drivers/mfd/cros_ec.c
@@ -119,17 +119,15 @@ int cros_ec_register(struct cros_ec_device *ec_dev)
return -ENOMEM;
}
- if (!ec_dev-irq) {
- dev_dbg(dev, no valid IRQ: %d\n, ec_dev-irq);
- return err;
- }
-
- err = request_threaded_irq(ec_dev-irq, NULL, ec_irq_thread,
-IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW | IRQF_ONESHOT,
-chromeos-ec, ec_dev);
- if (err) {
- dev_err(dev, request irq %d: error %d\n, ec_dev-irq, err);
- return err;
+ if (ec_dev-irq) {
+ err = request_threaded_irq(ec_dev-irq, NULL, ec_irq_thread,
+ IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW | IRQF_ONESHOT,
+ chromeos-ec, ec_dev);
Is there anything stopping you using the devm_* version?
+ if (err) {
+ dev_err(dev, request irq %d: error %d\n,
+ ec_dev-irq, err);
+ return err;
+ }
}
err = mfd_add_devices(dev, 0, cros_devs,
@@ -145,7 +143,8 @@ int cros_ec_register(struct cros_ec_device *ec_dev)
return 0;
fail_mfd:
- free_irq(ec_dev-irq, ec_dev);
+ if (ec_dev-irq)
+ free_irq(ec_dev-irq, ec_dev);
return err;
}
@@ -154,7 +153,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(cros_ec_register);
int cros_ec_remove(struct cros_ec_device *ec_dev)
{
mfd_remove_devices(ec_dev-dev);
- free_irq(ec_dev-irq, ec_dev);
+ if (ec_dev-irq)
+ free_irq(ec_dev-irq, ec_dev);
return 0;
}
--
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 02/10] mfd: cros_ec: IRQs for cros_ec should be optional
Lee,
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 12:55 AM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014, Doug Anderson wrote:
From: Bill Richardson wfric...@chromium.org
Preparing the way for the LPC device, which is just a plaform_device without
interrupts.
Signed-off-by: Bill Richardson wfric...@chromium.org
Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson diand...@chromium.org
---
drivers/mfd/cros_ec.c | 26 +-
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mfd/cros_ec.c b/drivers/mfd/cros_ec.c
index 38fe9bf..bd6f936 100644
--- a/drivers/mfd/cros_ec.c
+++ b/drivers/mfd/cros_ec.c
@@ -119,17 +119,15 @@ int cros_ec_register(struct cros_ec_device *ec_dev)
return -ENOMEM;
}
- if (!ec_dev-irq) {
- dev_dbg(dev, no valid IRQ: %d\n, ec_dev-irq);
- return err;
- }
-
- err = request_threaded_irq(ec_dev-irq, NULL, ec_irq_thread,
-IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW | IRQF_ONESHOT,
-chromeos-ec, ec_dev);
- if (err) {
- dev_err(dev, request irq %d: error %d\n, ec_dev-irq, err);
- return err;
+ if (ec_dev-irq) {
+ err = request_threaded_irq(ec_dev-irq, NULL, ec_irq_thread,
+ IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW | IRQF_ONESHOT,
+ chromeos-ec, ec_dev);
Is there anything stopping you using the devm_* version?
I'm generally quite hesitant about using the devm_ IRQ functions.
Requesting an IRQ enables the IRQ at the time of request and freeing
it disables it, right? Leaving it up to the the devm subsystem to
disable your IRQ tends to be a race waiting to happen if an IRQ
happens after you've freed all your memory / cleaned up all your
state.
Looking at cros_ec in particular though:
* Right now the last thing done in cros_ec_remove() (which is the last
thing in both cros_ec_i2c_remove and cros_ec_spi_remove) is to free
the IRQ. That means that you're right: we could switch to devm_ in
this case and it wouldn't introduce any new bugs.
* ...but I'm not convinced that the location of the free_irq() today
is quite right. I couldn't actually get it to crash or hang, but
there is a time period where we've called mfd_remove_devices() and the
IRQ is still active. That doesn't seem like a super great situation
to be in. I'll add a move of the irq_free to the patch series.
-Doug
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 02/10] mfd: cros_ec: IRQs for cros_ec should be optional
On Wed, 18 Jun 2014, Doug Anderson wrote:
Lee,
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 12:55 AM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014, Doug Anderson wrote:
From: Bill Richardson wfric...@chromium.org
Preparing the way for the LPC device, which is just a plaform_device
without
interrupts.
Signed-off-by: Bill Richardson wfric...@chromium.org
Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson diand...@chromium.org
---
drivers/mfd/cros_ec.c | 26 +-
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mfd/cros_ec.c b/drivers/mfd/cros_ec.c
index 38fe9bf..bd6f936 100644
--- a/drivers/mfd/cros_ec.c
+++ b/drivers/mfd/cros_ec.c
@@ -119,17 +119,15 @@ int cros_ec_register(struct cros_ec_device *ec_dev)
return -ENOMEM;
}
- if (!ec_dev-irq) {
- dev_dbg(dev, no valid IRQ: %d\n, ec_dev-irq);
- return err;
- }
-
- err = request_threaded_irq(ec_dev-irq, NULL, ec_irq_thread,
-IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW | IRQF_ONESHOT,
-chromeos-ec, ec_dev);
- if (err) {
- dev_err(dev, request irq %d: error %d\n, ec_dev-irq, err);
- return err;
+ if (ec_dev-irq) {
+ err = request_threaded_irq(ec_dev-irq, NULL, ec_irq_thread,
+ IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW | IRQF_ONESHOT,
+ chromeos-ec, ec_dev);
Is there anything stopping you using the devm_* version?
I'm generally quite hesitant about using the devm_ IRQ functions.
Requesting an IRQ enables the IRQ at the time of request and freeing
it disables it, right? Leaving it up to the the devm subsystem to
disable your IRQ tends to be a race waiting to happen if an IRQ
happens after you've freed all your memory / cleaned up all your
state.
Looking at cros_ec in particular though:
* Right now the last thing done in cros_ec_remove() (which is the last
thing in both cros_ec_i2c_remove and cros_ec_spi_remove) is to free
the IRQ. That means that you're right: we could switch to devm_ in
this case and it wouldn't introduce any new bugs.
* ...but I'm not convinced that the location of the free_irq() today
is quite right. I couldn't actually get it to crash or hang, but
there is a time period where we've called mfd_remove_devices() and the
IRQ is still active. That doesn't seem like a super great situation
to be in. I'll add a move of the irq_free to the patch series.
I guess if you're concerned about ordering you could always use
devm_free_irq() in the places where you think it should be freed
earlier than release. I'm pretty sure that discludes the failure
patch in probe() though, so we'd still be able to rid a few lines.
--
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 02/10] mfd: cros_ec: IRQs for cros_ec should be optional
Lee,
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2014, Doug Anderson wrote:
Lee,
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 12:55 AM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014, Doug Anderson wrote:
From: Bill Richardson wfric...@chromium.org
Preparing the way for the LPC device, which is just a plaform_device
without
interrupts.
Signed-off-by: Bill Richardson wfric...@chromium.org
Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson diand...@chromium.org
---
drivers/mfd/cros_ec.c | 26 +-
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mfd/cros_ec.c b/drivers/mfd/cros_ec.c
index 38fe9bf..bd6f936 100644
--- a/drivers/mfd/cros_ec.c
+++ b/drivers/mfd/cros_ec.c
@@ -119,17 +119,15 @@ int cros_ec_register(struct cros_ec_device *ec_dev)
return -ENOMEM;
}
- if (!ec_dev-irq) {
- dev_dbg(dev, no valid IRQ: %d\n, ec_dev-irq);
- return err;
- }
-
- err = request_threaded_irq(ec_dev-irq, NULL, ec_irq_thread,
-IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW | IRQF_ONESHOT,
-chromeos-ec, ec_dev);
- if (err) {
- dev_err(dev, request irq %d: error %d\n, ec_dev-irq,
err);
- return err;
+ if (ec_dev-irq) {
+ err = request_threaded_irq(ec_dev-irq, NULL, ec_irq_thread,
+ IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW | IRQF_ONESHOT,
+ chromeos-ec, ec_dev);
Is there anything stopping you using the devm_* version?
I'm generally quite hesitant about using the devm_ IRQ functions.
Requesting an IRQ enables the IRQ at the time of request and freeing
it disables it, right? Leaving it up to the the devm subsystem to
disable your IRQ tends to be a race waiting to happen if an IRQ
happens after you've freed all your memory / cleaned up all your
state.
Looking at cros_ec in particular though:
* Right now the last thing done in cros_ec_remove() (which is the last
thing in both cros_ec_i2c_remove and cros_ec_spi_remove) is to free
the IRQ. That means that you're right: we could switch to devm_ in
this case and it wouldn't introduce any new bugs.
* ...but I'm not convinced that the location of the free_irq() today
is quite right. I couldn't actually get it to crash or hang, but
there is a time period where we've called mfd_remove_devices() and the
IRQ is still active. That doesn't seem like a super great situation
to be in. I'll add a move of the irq_free to the patch series.
I guess if you're concerned about ordering you could always use
devm_free_irq() in the places where you think it should be freed
earlier than release. I'm pretty sure that discludes the failure
patch in probe() though, so we'd still be able to rid a few lines.
Hmmm, I'd even vote to move the IRQ request to be the last thing in
probe (which would also mean that the devm wouldn't be used but would
then require us to call mfd_remove_devices()). ...but I can't find
any good reason that we need to do that.
Oh, dang. I just looked at the next local patch in the list of local
ones. ...it totally rips this code out and moves the IRQ to
cros_ec_keyboard where it belongs (the infrastructure didn't really
allow more than one person to use this anyway). I'll just squash this
patch there and we're done. Sorry for the noise! :(
-Doug
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 02/10] mfd: cros_ec: IRQs for cros_ec should be optional
On 16 June 2014 14:39, Doug Anderson diand...@chromium.org wrote: From: Bill Richardson wfric...@chromium.org Preparing the way for the LPC device, which is just a plaform_device without interrupts. Signed-off-by: Bill Richardson wfric...@chromium.org Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson diand...@chromium.org Reviewed-by: Simon Glass s...@chromium.org -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
