Hang on reboot in nand_get_device()
Boris Brezillon
boris.brezillon at free-electrons.com
Mon Nov 9 13:36:13 PST 2015
Hi again,
Just want to add that this discussion shouldn't prevent your fix from
being applied. The main reason I'm arguing here is because I want to
understand the rationale behind the current handling of FL_PM_SUSPENDED
and FL_SHUTDOWN.
On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 21:55:08 +0100
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon at free-electrons.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> > > index ceb68ca..812b8b1 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> > > @@ -830,6 +830,20 @@ nand_get_device(struct mtd_info *mtd, int new_state)
> > > retry:
> > > spin_lock(lock);
> > >
> > > + /* putting the NAND chip in shutdown state should always succeed. */
> > > + if (new_state == FL_SHUTDOWN) {
> > > + /*
> > > + * release the controller if the chip put in shutdown state
> > > + * is the current active device.
> > > + */
> > > + if (chip->controller->active == chip)
> > > + chip->controller->active = NULL;
> > > +
> > > + chip->state = new_state;
> > > + spin_unlock(lock);
> > > + return 0;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > /* Hardware controller shared among independent devices */
> > > if (!chip->controller->active)
> > > chip->controller->active = chip;
> > >
> >
> > This looks a lot more subtle and potentially wrong. What exactly is the
> > rationale here? It appears you're kind of unlocking the controller (any
> > other flash on the same controller can still go ahead) but at the same
> > time forcing no further users of this particular flash.
It's even worst: I'm not waiting for the chip to become ready, so I'm
potentially re-introducing the bug Scott was trying to solve with his
reboot notifier.
--
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
More information about the linux-mtd
mailing list