[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220611185851.4d266d5e@jic23-huawei>
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2022 18:58:51 +0100
From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...rochip.com>
Cc: <eugen.hristev@...rochip.com>, <lars@...afoo.de>,
<nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>, <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
<robh+dt@...nel.org>, <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
<ludovic.desroches@...el.com>, <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/16] iio: adc: at91-sama5d2_adc: add locking parameter
to at91_adc_read_info_raw()
On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 11:32:08 +0300
Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...rochip.com> wrote:
> Add a parameter to at91_adc_read_info_raw() to specify if st->lock mutex
> need to be acquired. This prepares for the addition of temperature sensor
> code which will re-use at91_adc_read_info_raw() function to read 2 voltages
> for determining the real temperature.
This looks like a potential lock dependency issue.
iio_device_claim_direct_mode() takes an internal iio lock, and
you then take st->lock.
If you are going to invert that locking order in another path
you have a deadlock.
So rethink this. If you want to reuse the code you'll need to factor
it out to a separate function that takes none of the locks then
take all locks needed in each call path (in the same order).
Jonathan
>
> Signed-off-by: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...rochip.com>
> ---
> drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c | 15 ++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c b/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c
> index 1283bcf4e682..8f8fef42de84 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c
> @@ -1583,7 +1583,8 @@ static irqreturn_t at91_adc_interrupt(int irq, void *private)
> }
>
> static int at91_adc_read_info_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
> - struct iio_chan_spec const *chan, int *val)
> + struct iio_chan_spec const *chan, int *val,
> + bool lock)
> {
> struct at91_adc_state *st = iio_priv(indio_dev);
> int (*fn)(struct at91_adc_state *, int, u16 *) = NULL;
> @@ -1602,13 +1603,15 @@ static int at91_adc_read_info_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
> ret = iio_device_claim_direct_mode(indio_dev);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
> - mutex_lock(&st->lock);
> + if (lock)
> + mutex_lock(&st->lock);
>
> if (fn) {
> ret = fn(st, chan->channel, &tmp_val);
> *val = tmp_val;
> ret = at91_adc_adjust_val_osr(st, val);
> - mutex_unlock(&st->lock);
> + if (lock)
> + mutex_unlock(&st->lock);
> iio_device_release_direct_mode(indio_dev);
>
> return ret;
> @@ -1644,7 +1647,8 @@ static int at91_adc_read_info_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
> /* Needed to ACK the DRDY interruption */
> at91_adc_readl(st, LCDR);
>
> - mutex_unlock(&st->lock);
> + if (lock)
> + mutex_unlock(&st->lock);
>
> iio_device_release_direct_mode(indio_dev);
> return ret;
> @@ -1658,7 +1662,8 @@ static int at91_adc_read_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
>
> switch (mask) {
> case IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW:
> - return at91_adc_read_info_raw(indio_dev, chan, val);
> + return at91_adc_read_info_raw(indio_dev, chan, val, true);
> +
> case IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE:
> *val = st->vref_uv / 1000;
> if (chan->differential)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists