lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Jan]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] platform/chromeos: cros_ec: Use per-device lockdep key
On Fri, Jan 06, 2023 at 12:55:37PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> Lockdep reports a bogus possible deadlock on MT8192 Chromebooks due to
> the following lock sequences:
>
> 1. lock(i2c_register_adapter) [1]; lock(&ec_dev->lock)
> 2. lock(&ec_dev->lock); lock(prepare_lock);
>
> The actual dependency chains are much longer. The shortened version
> looks somewhat like:
>
> 1. cros-ec-rpmsg on mtk-scp
> ec_dev->lock -> prepare_lock
> 2. In rt5682_i2c_probe() on native I2C bus:
> prepare_lock -> regmap->lock -> (possibly) i2c_adapter->bus_lock
> 3. In rt5682_i2c_probe() on native I2C bus:
> regmap->lock -> i2c_adapter->bus_lock
> 4. In sbs_probe() on cros-ec-i2c (passthrough) I2C bus on cros-ec
> i2c_adapter->bus_lock -> ec_dev->lock
>
> While lockdep is correct that the shared lockdep classes have a circular
> dependency, it is bogus because
>
> a) 2+3 happen on a native I2C bus
> b) 4 happens on the actual EC on ChromeOS devices
> c) 1 happens on the SCP coprocessor on MediaTek Chromebooks that just
> happen to expose a cros-ec interface, but do not have a passthrough
> I2C bus
>
> In short, the "dependencies" are actually on different devices.

Path of 4 looks weird to me.

Could you point out where sbs_probe() gets to acquire ec_dev->lock?

I may misunderstand: I thought there is no such I2C bus for passthrough
from kernel's point of view (as the bus and devices behind the EC).
See also [2].

[2]: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.2-rc2/source/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec.c#L241


On a related note, for the commit title: s/chromeos/chrome/ if it gets
chance to have next version.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-26 23:29    [W:1.357 / U:0.392 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site