[PATCH v2] pwm: sifive: Always let the first pwm_apply_state succeed
Emil Renner Berthing
emil.renner.berthing at canonical.com
Wed Nov 16 09:41:06 PST 2022
On Wed, 9 Nov 2022 at 16:33, Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig at pengutronix.de> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 09, 2022 at 01:45:43PM +0100, Emil Renner Berthing wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Nov 2022 at 13:01, Uwe Kleine-König
> > <u.kleine-koenig at pengutronix.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello Emil,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 09, 2022 at 12:37:24PM +0100, Emil Renner Berthing wrote:
> > > > Commit 2cfe9bbec56ea579135cdd92409fff371841904f added support for the
> > > > RGB and green PWM controlled LEDs on the HiFive Unmatched board
> > > > managed by the leds-pwm-multicolor and leds-pwm drivers respectively.
> > > > All three colours of the RGB LED and the green LED run from different
> > > > lines of the same PWM, but with the same period so this works fine when
> > > > the LED drivers are loaded one after the other.
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately it does expose a race in the PWM driver when both LED
> > > > drivers are loaded at roughly the same time. Here is an example:
> > > >
> > > > | Thread A | Thread B |
> > > > | led_pwm_mc_probe | led_pwm_probe |
> > > > | devm_fwnode_pwm_get | |
> > > > | pwm_sifive_request | |
> > > > | ddata->user_count++ | |
> > > > | | devm_fwnode_pwm_get |
> > > > | | pwm_sifive_request |
> > > > | | ddata->user_count++ |
> > > > | ... | ... |
> > > > | pwm_state_apply | pwm_state_apply |
> > > > | pwm_sifive_apply | pwm_sifive_apply |
> > > >
> > > > Now both calls to pwm_sifive_apply will see that ddata->approx_period,
> > > > initially 0, is different from the requested period and the clock needs
> > > > to be updated. But since ddata->user_count >= 2 both calls will fail
> > > > with -EBUSY, which will then cause both LED drivers to fail to probe.
> > > >
> > > > Fix it by letting the first call to pwm_sifive_apply update the clock
> > > > even when ddata->user_count != 1.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: 9e37a53eb051 ("pwm: sifive: Add a driver for SiFive SoC PWM")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Emil Renner Berthing <emil.renner.berthing at canonical.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/pwm/pwm-sifive.c | 8 +++++++-
> > > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-sifive.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-sifive.c
> > > > index 2d4fa5e5fdd4..b3c60ec72a6e 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-sifive.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-sifive.c
> > > > @@ -159,7 +159,13 @@ static int pwm_sifive_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> > > >
> > > > mutex_lock(&ddata->lock);
> > > > if (state->period != ddata->approx_period) {
> > > > - if (ddata->user_count != 1) {
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Don't let a 2nd user change the period underneath the 1st user.
> > > > + * However if ddate->approx_period == 0 this is the first time we set
> > > > + * any period, so let whoever gets here first set the period so other
> > > > + * users who agree on the period won't fail.
> > > > + */
> > > > + if (ddata->user_count != 1 && ddata->approx_period) {
> > >
> > > While I'm convinced this works, we'd get some more uniform behaviour
> > > compared to other hardwares with similar restrictions if you lock the
> > > period on enabling the PWM instead of at request time. See for example
> > > drivers/pwm/pwm-pca9685.c.
> >
> > Hmm.. that driver uses a pwms_enabled bitmap rather than a user count,
> > but it still sets the bit in the request method and refuses to change
> > period in the apply method if more than 1 bit is set.
>
> Note there are two different bitmaps. The one modified in .request is
> for gpio stuff and the other in .apply() for locking the common period
> length.
Yeah, there is the pwms_enabled and pwms_inuse bitmaps, but
pwms_enabled is used both in .request and .apply.
> > So as far as I
> > can tell it still suffers from the same race. However using a bitmap
> > instead of a user count would let us handle everything in the apply
> > method if we don't set the bit in the request method, but then the
> > behaviour would still be different. In any case it would still be a
> > large change to this driver.
> >
> > How about we merge this bug fix that can easily be backported first
> > and then look at how it should be handled properly?
>
> I thought it wouldn't be that hard to do it right from the start,
> but I admit it's harder than I expected to get right. My prototype looks
> as follows:
This works for me (modulo the two extra {'s). I'd still prefer merging
the simpler version and then this on top for ease of backporting, but
as long as the race is fixed I'm fine. Will you send a cleaned up
version of this?
/Emil
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-sifive.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-sifive.c
> index 2d4fa5e5fdd4..89846d95bfc0 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-sifive.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-sifive.c
> @@ -41,13 +41,13 @@
>
> struct pwm_sifive_ddata {
> struct pwm_chip chip;
> - struct mutex lock; /* lock to protect user_count and approx_period */
> + struct mutex lock; /* lock to protect approx_period */
> struct notifier_block notifier;
> struct clk *clk;
> void __iomem *regs;
> unsigned int real_period;
> unsigned int approx_period;
> - int user_count;
> + DECLARE_BITMAP(pwms_enabled, 4);
> };
>
> static inline
> @@ -59,10 +59,16 @@ struct pwm_sifive_ddata *pwm_sifive_chip_to_ddata(struct pwm_chip *c)
> static int pwm_sifive_request(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
> {
> struct pwm_sifive_ddata *ddata = pwm_sifive_chip_to_ddata(chip);
> + u32 val = readl(ddata->regs + PWM_SIFIVE_PWMCFG);
>
> - mutex_lock(&ddata->lock);
> - ddata->user_count++;
> - mutex_unlock(&ddata->lock);
> + if (val & PWM_SIFIVE_PWMCFG_EN_ALWAYS) {
> + val = readl(ddata->regs + PWM_SIFIVE_PWMCMP(pwm->hwpwm));
> + if (val > 0) {
> + mutex_lock(&ddata->lock);
> + __set_bit(pwm->hwpwm, ddata->pwms_enabled);
> + mutex_unlock(&ddata->lock);
> + }
> + }
>
> return 0;
> }
> @@ -72,7 +78,7 @@ static void pwm_sifive_free(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
> struct pwm_sifive_ddata *ddata = pwm_sifive_chip_to_ddata(chip);
>
> mutex_lock(&ddata->lock);
> - ddata->user_count--;
> + __clear_bit(pwm->hwpwm, ddata->pwms_enabled);
> mutex_unlock(&ddata->lock);
> }
>
> @@ -158,11 +164,18 @@ static int pwm_sifive_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> frac = min(frac, (1U << PWM_SIFIVE_CMPWIDTH) - 1);
>
> mutex_lock(&ddata->lock);
> +
> + if (state->enabled) {
> + __set_bit(pwm->hwpwm, ddata->pwms_enabled);
> +
> if (state->period != ddata->approx_period) {
> - if (ddata->user_count != 1) {
> + if (bitmap_weight(ddata->pwms_enabled, 4) > 1) {
> + if (!enabled) {
> + __clear_bit(pwm->hwpwm, ddata->pwms_enabled);
> mutex_unlock(&ddata->lock);
> return -EBUSY;
> }
> +
> ddata->approx_period = state->period;
> pwm_sifive_update_clock(ddata, clk_get_rate(ddata->clk));
> }
> @@ -177,14 +190,23 @@ static int pwm_sifive_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> ret = clk_enable(ddata->clk);
> if (ret) {
> dev_err(ddata->chip.dev, "Enable clk failed\n");
> + if (state->enabled) {
> + mutex_lock(&ddata->lock);
> + __clear_bit(pwm->hwpwm, ddata->pwms_enabled);
> + mutex_unlock(&ddata->lock);
> + }
> return ret;
> }
> }
>
> writel(frac, ddata->regs + PWM_SIFIVE_PWMCMP(pwm->hwpwm));
>
> - if (!state->enabled)
> + if (!state->enabled) {
> + mutex_lock(&ddata->lock);
> + __clear_bit(pwm->hwpwm, ddata->pwms_enabled);
> + mutex_unlock(&ddata->lock);
> clk_disable(ddata->clk);
> + }
>
> return 0;
> }
>
> Best regards
> Uwe
>
> --
> Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
> Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
More information about the linux-riscv
mailing list