[RESEND PATCH 3/4] leds: leds-ns2: handle can_sleep GPIOs
simon.guinot at sequanux.org
Mon Jun 29 07:41:23 PDT 2015
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 04:25:13PM +0200, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
> 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.
It is already the case.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the linux-arm-kernel