Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3] PM / devfreq: Fix devfreq_add_device() when drivers are built as modules. | From | Akhil P Oommen <> | Date | Fri, 22 Jun 2018 12:33:59 +0530 |
| |
On 6/22/2018 6:41 AM, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: > Hey Enric, > > On Fri, 2018-06-22 at 00:04 +0200, Enric Balletbo i Serra wrote: >> When the devfreq driver and the governor driver are built as modules, >> the call to devfreq_add_device() or governor_store() fails because >> the >> governor driver is not loaded at the time the devfreq driver loads. >> The >> devfreq driver has a build dependency on the governor but also should >> have a runtime dependency. We need to make sure that the governor >> driver >> is loaded before the devfreq driver. >> >> This patch fixes this bug by adding a try_then_request_governor() >> function. First tries to find the governor, and then, if it is not >> found, >> it requests the module and tries again. >> >> Fixes: 1b5c1be2c88e (PM / devfreq: map devfreq drivers to governor >> using name) >> Signed-off-by: Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@collabora.com> >> --- >> >> Changes in v3: >> - Remove unneded change in dev_err message. >> - Fix err returned value in case to not find the governor. >> >> Changes in v2: >> - Add a new function to request the module and call that function >> from >> devfreq_add_device and governor_store. >> >> drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- >> -- > [snip snip] >> - governor = find_devfreq_governor(devfreq->governor_name); >> + governor = try_then_request_governor(devfreq- >>> governor_name); >> if (IS_ERR(governor)) { >> dev_err(dev, "%s: Unable to find governor for the >> device\n", >> __func__); >> err = PTR_ERR(governor); >> - goto err_init; >> + goto err_unregister; >> } >> >> + mutex_lock(&devfreq_list_lock); >> + > I know it's not something we are introducing in this patch, > but still... calling a hook with a mutex held looks > fishy to me. > > This lock should only protect the list, unless I am missing > something. > >> devfreq->governor = governor; >> err = devfreq->governor->event_handler(devfreq, >> DEVFREQ_GOV_START, >> NULL); >> @@ -663,14 +703,16 @@ struct devfreq *devfreq_add_device(struct >> device *dev, >> __func__); >> goto err_init; >> } >> + >> + list_add(&devfreq->node, &devfreq_list); >> + >> mutex_unlock(&devfreq_list_lock); >> >> return devfreq; >> >> err_init: >> - list_del(&devfreq->node); >> mutex_unlock(&devfreq_list_lock); >> - >> +err_unregister: >> device_unregister(&devfreq->dev); >> err_dev: >> if (devfreq) >> @@ -988,12 +1030,13 @@ static ssize_t governor_store(struct device >> *dev, struct device_attribute *attr, >> if (ret != 1) >> return -EINVAL; >> >> - mutex_lock(&devfreq_list_lock); >> - governor = find_devfreq_governor(str_governor); >> + governor = try_then_request_governor(str_governor); >> if (IS_ERR(governor)) { >> - ret = PTR_ERR(governor); >> - goto out; >> + return PTR_ERR(governor); >> } >> + >> + mutex_lock(&devfreq_list_lock); >> + >> if (df->governor == governor) { >> ret = 0; >> goto out; >> -- >> 2.17.1 >> >> > > Regards, > Eze
Adding to Ezequiel's point, shouldn't we take more granular lock (devfreq->lock) first and then call devfreq_list_lock at the time of adding to the list?
-Akhil.
| |