[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <97040a1e-7a24-3d41-c3b7-43b551a70825@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2019 16:44:21 +0000
From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
To: Fabien Dessenne <fabien.dessenne@...com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc: Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] irqchip: stm32: add a second level init to request
hwspinlock
On 07/03/2019 16:23, Fabien Dessenne wrote:
> Requesting hwspinlock, at the first time it is used, is not correct:
> indeed, at that moment we are under raw_spin_lock_irqsave() context and
> hwspin_lock_request_specific() may sleep ("BUG: sleeping function called
> from invalid context").
> Requesting hwspinlock during the init (stm32*_exti_of_init()) is also
> not possible (the hwspinlock framework is not ready at that stage of the
> kernel init).
> As a consequence, add a second level init (probed with arch_initcall)
> where we can safely request hwspinlock.
No, this is fairly broken. You're playing with stuff you're not supposed
to (OF_POPULATE? really?), and adding initcalls is completely unreliable
(things depend on the link order and will randomly break).
If you need dependencies, implement them correctly. Turn this driver
into a real device driver (in the platform device sense), and return
PROBE_DEFER when you can't find your dependency.
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists