[RESEND PATCH 3/4] leds: leds-ns2: handle can_sleep GPIOs

[Jacek Anaszewski]

On 06/26/2015 07:10 PM, Simon Guinot wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 04:18:29PM +0200, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
>> On 06/18/2015 05:17 PM, Simon Guinot wrote:
>>> On the board n090401 (Seagate NAS 4-Bay), some of the LEDs are handled
>>> by the leds-ns2 driver. This LEDs are connected to an I2C GPIO expander
>>> (PCA95554PW) which means that GPIO access may sleep. This patch makes
>>> leds-ns2 compatible with such GPIOs by using the *_cansleep() variant of
>>> the GPIO functions. As a drawback this functions can't be used safely in
>>> a timer context (with the timer LED trigger for example). To fix this
>>> issue, a workqueue mechanism (copied from the leds-gpio driver) is used.
>>>
>>> Note that this patch also updates slightly the ns2_led_sata_store
>>> function. The LED state is now retrieved from cached values instead of
>>> reading the GPIOs previously. This prevents ns2_led_sata_store from
>>> working with a stale LED state (which may happen when a delayed work
>>> is pending).
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Guinot <simon.guinot at sequanux.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Vincent Donnefort <vdonnefort at gmail.com>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/leds/leds-ns2.c | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>>>   1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> +static void ns2_led_work(struct work_struct *work)
>>> +{
>>> +	struct ns2_led_data *led_dat =
>>> +		container_of(work, struct ns2_led_data, work);
>>> +	int i = led_dat->new_mode_index;
>>> +
>>> +	write_lock(&led_dat->rw_lock);
>>> +
>>> +	gpio_set_value_cansleep(led_dat->cmd, led_dat->modval[i].cmd_level);
>>> +	gpio_set_value_cansleep(led_dat->slow, led_dat->modval[i].slow_level);
>>> +
>>> +	write_unlock(&led_dat->rw_lock);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>
>> I've just realized that this can break one of the basic rules:
>> no sleeping should occur while holding a spinlock. Did you
>> consider this?
>
> Well, if I did, I can't say I have done a good job here :/
>
> You have to know that this code is used on a large number of boards.
> Thus, I have to thank you for spotting this bug.As a relief, this don't
> actually lead to a bug with the configuration we are using: UP machine
> and !CONFIG_SMP.
>
> It should be simple to fix it because using a spinlock in ns2_led_work()
> is not needed. The GPIO writing calls are protected by the workqueue
> itself: a single instance is running at a time. We are only let with the
> new_mode_index reading which must be made coherent.
>
> Note that the very same issue also applies to ns2_led_get_mode(). And
> again using a lock here is not needed either. This function is only
> called once at probe time and there is no possible concurrency.

Switching to gpio_get_value_cansleep would be nice there too.

>
> I'll fix all this issues with the v2.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Simon
>


-- 
Best Regards,
Jacek Anaszewski