[lkml]   [2021]   [Jun]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] PCI: rockchip: Avoid accessing PCIe registers with clocks gated
On 2021-06-29 07:17, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> On 6/29/21 2:38 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 05:40:40PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> [snip]
>>>> So let's just move all the IRQ init before the pci_host_probe() call, that
>>>> will prevent issues like this and seems to be the correct thing to do too.
>>> Previously we registered rockchip_pcie_subsys_irq_handler() and
>>> rockchip_pcie_client_irq_handler() before the PCIe clocks were
>>> enabled. That's a problem because they depend on those clocks being
>>> enabled, and your patch fixes that.
>>> rockchip_pcie_legacy_int_handler() depends on rockchip->irq_domain,
>>> which isn't initialized until rockchip_pcie_init_irq_domain().
>>> Previously we registered rockchip_pcie_legacy_int_handler() as the
>>> handler for the "legacy" IRQ before rockchip_pcie_init_irq_domain().
>>> I think your patch *also* fixes that problem, right?
>> The lack of consistency in how we use
>> irq_set_chained_handler_and_data() really bugs me.
>> Your patch fixes the ordering issue where we installed
>> rockchip_pcie_legacy_int_handler() before initializing data
>> (rockchip->irq_domain) that it depends on.
>> But AFAICT, rockchip still has the problem that we don't *unregister*
>> rockchip_pcie_legacy_int_handler() when the rockchip-pcie module is
>> removed. Doesn't this mean that if we unload the module, then receive
>> an interrupt from the device, we'll try to call a function that is no
>> longer present?
> Good question, I don't to be honest. I'll have to dig deeper on this but
> my experience is that the module removal (and device unbind) is not that
> well tested on ARM device drivers in general.

Well, it does use devm_request_irq() so the handler should be
unregistered by devres *after* ->remove has finished, however that does
still leave a potential race window in which a pending IRQ could be
taken during the later part of rockchip_pcie_remove() after it has
started turning off critical things. Unless the clocks and regulators
can also be delegated to devres, it might be more robust to explicitly
manage the IRQs as well. Mixing the two schemes can be problematic when
the exact order of both setup and teardown matters.


 \ /
  Last update: 2021-06-29 12:53    [W:0.125 / U:1.452 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site