linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/6] gpiolib: Allow GPIO chips to request their own GPIOs

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 5 Mar 2014 14:05:50 +0200
From:	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc:	Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
	Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@...el.com>,
	Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@...el.com>, Alan Cox <alan.cox@...el.com>,
	Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@...ux.intel.com>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] gpiolib: Allow GPIO chips to request their own GPIOs

On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 10:49:41AM +0800, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 12:00 AM, Mika Westerberg
> <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > Sometimes it is useful to allow GPIO chips themselves to request GPIOs they
> > own through gpiolib API. One usecase is ACPI ASL code that should be able
> > to toggle GPIOs through GPIO operation regions.
> >
> > We can't really use gpio_request() and its counterparts because it will pin
> > the module to the kernel forever (as it calls module_get()). Instead we
> > provide a gpiolib internal functions gpiochip_request/free_own_desc() that
> > work the same as gpio_request() but don't manipulate module refrence count.
> >
> > Since it's the GPIO chip driver who requests the GPIOs in the first place
> > we can be sure that it cannot be unloaded without the driver knowing about
> > that. Furthermore we only limit this functionality to be available only
> > inside gpiolib.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
> 
> I fully trust you in doing the ACPI stuff in patches 2-n but on this patch
> in particular I want Alexandre's review tag as well, as he's working
> actively with the descriptor API and I don't want to add too many quirks
> without his consent.

Thanks for your trust :)

> So Alexandre, what do you say about this?

I'm about to send v2 of the series with Rafael's comments taken into
account. However, I stumbled to another locking problem:

I'm going to move taking the gpio_lock outside of __gpiod_request() and
have __gpiod_request() to release that lock, so that we can call
chip->request() safely.

Since we are using _irqsave()/_irqrestore() versions, it means that I need
to pass flags as a pointer from gpiod_request() to __gpiod_request() like:

	spin_lock_irqsave(&gpio_lock, flags);
	if (try_module_get(chip->owner)) {
		ret = __gpiod_request(desc, label, &flags);
		...

Is that acceptable or can you guys suggest some alternative? One
alternative that I can think about is to have __gpiod_request() to take the
lock and move try_module_get() outside to gpiod_request():

__gpiod_request()
{
	unsigned long flags;

	spin_lock_irqsave(&gpio_lock, flags);
	...
}

gpiod_request():
{
	...
	if (try_module_get(chip->owner)) {
		ret = __gpiod_request(desc, label);
		...
}

Thoughts?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/