From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9688FC433FE for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2022 09:56:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1348334AbiAKJ4d (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jan 2022 04:56:33 -0500 Received: from mga12.intel.com ([192.55.52.136]:49725 "EHLO mga12.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1348285AbiAKJ43 (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jan 2022 04:56:29 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1641894989; x=1673430989; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=NhMqLNqYtGbtpdo/7urAitfJ25RKbDgQ5dy+XBCizG8=; b=BndJVY7Q33OjQ/k4stUNAHTDkvlolhRcLE5VN0vTeSj7cQikcq35W1ZX Lesg3Bjqc2ZgUNB/EW84VxvujXJ4PHGeIT/kfzVqB4dXAnml9HukaAx2v GIjt6VcHkh//JO3E8E/WH+R9DujeMhQP7KG7MIZfjUK9XLkkHsRh3RN8D Xp0qot64OMLWqaioBQ6WtvOquSD7XaeOZHG5bjWS82YLgLKEx3ZTBdEq5 /o/qL/8S748ojn/8tZBscsRfXpxtpdJTxigYIvPVbBRNForJjbUHDvOcE kheZcr5hXVXxoxCWzlvuMLCLUkdJyoXl2i+bNwvT7I32bo8ARR3odhgcy A==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,10223"; a="223430839" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.88,279,1635231600"; d="scan'208";a="223430839" Received: from orsmga005.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.41]) by fmsmga106.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 11 Jan 2022 01:56:28 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.88,279,1635231600"; d="scan'208";a="690942382" Received: from mylly.fi.intel.com (HELO [10.237.72.50]) ([10.237.72.50]) by orsmga005.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 11 Jan 2022 01:56:27 -0800 Message-ID: <53c81521-8cbd-7e7f-df38-ce6c09c77fae@linux.intel.com> Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2022 11:56:26 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/91.0 Thunderbird/91.4.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/23] counter: cleanups and device lifetime fixes Content-Language: en-US To: =?UTF-8?Q?Uwe_Kleine-K=c3=b6nig?= , William Breathitt Gray Cc: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@pengutronix.de References: <20211229154441.38045-1-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> <20220106151355.d4ogjpo3y5qnkrgs@pengutronix.de> From: Jarkko Nikula In-Reply-To: <20220106151355.d4ogjpo3y5qnkrgs@pengutronix.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi On 1/6/22 17:13, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > On Wed, Jan 05, 2022 at 09:26:58PM +0900, William Breathitt Gray wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 04:44:18PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: >>> - I think intel-qep.c makes the counter unfunctional in >>> intel_qep_remove before the counter is unregistered. >> >> Hello Uwe, >> >> Would you elaborate some more on this? I think intel_qep_remove() is >> only called after the counter is unregistered because the struct >> counter_device parent is set to &pci->dev in intel_qep_probe(). Am I >> misunderstanding the removal path? > > If the counter device is unbound (e.g. via sysfs), the following calls > are made: > > intel_qep_remove() (stopping the hardware?) > devm_counter_release (devm callback of devm_counter_register or ..._add) > then the release callbacks of the earlier devm functions > > My concern is, that in the timeslot between intel_qep_remove() and > devm_counter_release() the device looks like a functional device and > might be queried/reconfigured/... while the hardware is already dead. > > It's probably not a big issue (unless for example reading the counter > this race window makes the hardware hang?), but it's at least ugly. > Maybe the worst effect is that a counter value is missed (which is OK at > unregister time). Still it would be nicer to first take down the counter > device and only then stop the hardware. > In HW point of view it should be safe. We do disable the HW in intel_qep_remove() but that doesn't render the HW unusable and registers are accessible. Perhaps that line can go since I think it was put there just to stop the HW just in case after remove. Jarkko