Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1457350 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v2 08/22] usb: chipidea: Remove locking in ci_udc_start()

Started byPeter Chen <hzpeterchen@gmail.com>
First post2016-08-06 23:00 +0200
Last post2016-08-09 03:00 +0200
Articles 2 — 2 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.


Contents

  Re: [PATCH v2 08/22] usb: chipidea: Remove locking in ci_udc_start() Peter Chen <hzpeterchen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 23:00 +0200
    RE: [PATCH v2 08/22] usb: chipidea: Remove locking in ci_udc_start() Peter Chen <peter.chen@nxp.com> - 2016-08-09 03:00 +0200

#1457350 — Re: [PATCH v2 08/22] usb: chipidea: Remove locking in ci_udc_start()

FromPeter Chen <hzpeterchen@gmail.com>
Date2016-08-06 23:00 +0200
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 08/22] usb: chipidea: Remove locking in ci_udc_start()
Message-ID<s3gRo-2h2-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 02:53:56PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Peter Chen (2016-07-08 02:45:28)
> > On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 03:20:59PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > We don't call hw_device_reset() with the ci->lock held, so it
> > > doesn't seem like this lock here is protecting anything. Let's
> > > just remove it. This allows us to call sleeping functions like
> > > phy_init() from within the CI_HDRC_CONTROLLER_RESET_EVENT hook.
> > > 
> > > Cc: Peter Chen <peter.chen@nxp.com>
> > > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <stephen.boyd@linaro.org>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/usb/chipidea/udc.c | 3 ---
> > >  1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/chipidea/udc.c b/drivers/usb/chipidea/udc.c
> > > index 065f5d97aa67..f16be4710cdb 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/usb/chipidea/udc.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/usb/chipidea/udc.c
> > > @@ -1719,7 +1719,6 @@ static int ci_udc_start(struct usb_gadget *gadget,
> > >                        struct usb_gadget_driver *driver)
> > >  {
> > >       struct ci_hdrc *ci = container_of(gadget, struct ci_hdrc, gadget);
> > > -     unsigned long flags;
> > >       int retval = -ENOMEM;
> > >  
> > >       if (driver->disconnect == NULL)
> > > @@ -1746,7 +1745,6 @@ static int ci_udc_start(struct usb_gadget *gadget,
> > >  
> > >       pm_runtime_get_sync(&ci->gadget.dev);
> > >       if (ci->vbus_active) {
> > > -             spin_lock_irqsave(&ci->lock, flags);
> > >               hw_device_reset(ci);
> > >       } else {
> > >               usb_udc_vbus_handler(&ci->gadget, false);
> > > @@ -1755,7 +1753,6 @@ static int ci_udc_start(struct usb_gadget *gadget,
> > >       }
> > >  
> > >       retval = hw_device_state(ci, ci->ep0out->qh.dma);
> > > -     spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ci->lock, flags);
> > >       if (retval)
> > >               pm_runtime_put_sync(&ci->gadget.dev);
> > >  
> > 
> > The main purpose for this is disabling interrupt when reset controller,
> > in case the unexpected interrupts occur.
> > 
> > You can move this between hw_device_state.
> > 
> 
> Ok, but we don't hold the ci->lock in ci_udc_vbus_session(). Is that a
> bug as well?

I agree with your patch. In fact, during the reset controller, the
interrupt has not been enabled, it should no unexpected interrupt.

-- 

Best Regards,
Peter Chen

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#1458352

FromPeter Chen <peter.chen@nxp.com>
Date2016-08-09 03:00 +0200
Message-ID<s43yF-nY-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1457350
>Quoting Peter Chen (2016-08-06 00:54:35)
>> On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 02:53:56PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> > Quoting Peter Chen (2016-07-08 02:45:28)
>> > > On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 03:20:59PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> > > > We don't call hw_device_reset() with the ci->lock held, so it
>> > > > doesn't seem like this lock here is protecting anything. Let's
>> > > > just remove it. This allows us to call sleeping functions like
>> > > > phy_init() from within the CI_HDRC_CONTROLLER_RESET_EVENT hook.
>> > > >
>> > > > Cc: Peter Chen <peter.chen@nxp.com>
>> > > > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
>> > > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <stephen.boyd@linaro.org>
>> > > > ---
>> > > >  drivers/usb/chipidea/udc.c | 3 ---
>> > > >  1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
>> > > >
>> > > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/chipidea/udc.c
>> > > > b/drivers/usb/chipidea/udc.c index 065f5d97aa67..f16be4710cdb
>> > > > 100644
>> > > > --- a/drivers/usb/chipidea/udc.c
>> > > > +++ b/drivers/usb/chipidea/udc.c
>> > > > @@ -1719,7 +1719,6 @@ static int ci_udc_start(struct usb_gadget *gadget,
>> > > >                        struct usb_gadget_driver *driver)  {
>> > > >       struct ci_hdrc *ci = container_of(gadget, struct ci_hdrc, gadget);
>> > > > -     unsigned long flags;
>> > > >       int retval = -ENOMEM;
>> > > >
>> > > >       if (driver->disconnect == NULL) @@ -1746,7 +1745,6 @@
>> > > > static int ci_udc_start(struct usb_gadget *gadget,
>> > > >
>> > > >       pm_runtime_get_sync(&ci->gadget.dev);
>> > > >       if (ci->vbus_active) {
>> > > > -             spin_lock_irqsave(&ci->lock, flags);
>> > > >               hw_device_reset(ci);
>> > > >       } else {
>> > > >               usb_udc_vbus_handler(&ci->gadget, false); @@
>> > > > -1755,7 +1753,6 @@ static int ci_udc_start(struct usb_gadget *gadget,
>> > > >       }
>> > > >
>> > > >       retval = hw_device_state(ci, ci->ep0out->qh.dma);
>> > > > -     spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ci->lock, flags);
>> > > >       if (retval)
>> > > >               pm_runtime_put_sync(&ci->gadget.dev);
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > The main purpose for this is disabling interrupt when reset
>> > > controller, in case the unexpected interrupts occur.
>> > >
>> > > You can move this between hw_device_state.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Ok, but we don't hold the ci->lock in ci_udc_vbus_session(). Is that
>> > a bug as well?
>>
>> I agree with your patch. In fact, during the reset controller, the
>> interrupt has not been enabled, it should no unexpected interrupt.
>>
>
>So then we can leave this patch as is? It still isn't clear to me what sequence of
>events that would cause a problem if we don't hold the
>ci->lock around hw_device_state().

Yes. I am ok with this patch.  After thinking more, it is safe to be without lock.
And we have this unlock code in nxp internal tree, and without any problems
during 1-2 years.

Acked-by: Peter Chen <peter.chen@nxp.com>

Peter

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel


csiph-web