[PATCH] gpiolib: Defer failed gpio requests by default

[PATCH] gpiolib: Defer failed gpio requests by default

[Mark Brown]

Since users must be explicitly provided with a GPIO number in order to
request one the overwhelmingly common case for failing to request will
be that the required GPIO driver has not yet registered and we should
therefore defer until it has registered.

In order to avoid having to code this logic in individual drivers have
gpio_request() return -EPROBE_DEFER when failing to look up the GPIO.
Drivers which don't want this behaviour can override it if they desire.

Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
---
 drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
index 566d012..b244b0c 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
@@ -1186,7 +1186,7 @@ int gpio_request(unsigned gpio, const char *label)
 {
 	struct gpio_desc	*desc;
 	struct gpio_chip	*chip;
-	int			status = -EINVAL;
+	int			status = -EPROBE_DEFER;
 	unsigned long		flags;
 
 	spin_lock_irqsave(&gpio_lock, flags);
-- 
1.7.10

Re: [PATCH] gpiolib: Defer failed gpio requests by default

[Grant Likely]

On Wed,  2 May 2012 12:49:40 +0100, Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> wrote:
> Since users must be explicitly provided with a GPIO number in order to
> request one the overwhelmingly common case for failing to request will
> be that the required GPIO driver has not yet registered and we should
> therefore defer until it has registered.
> 
> In order to avoid having to code this logic in individual drivers have
> gpio_request() return -EPROBE_DEFER when failing to look up the GPIO.
> Drivers which don't want this behaviour can override it if they desire.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>

[cc'ing a bunch of people who I think have some knowledge about the PM
issues... I know this is a long email, but I think this problem needs
to be looked at by folks more familiar with suspend/resume than I]

This one is problematic.... well, not the patch itself but the way the
larger driver mode works with suspend/resume looks really wrong to me.
dpm_list keeps track of all the 'active' driver that need to be
suspended.  However, it assumes that the list are in the order that
they were probed and therefore it can can walk the list backwards when
suspending.

The assumption is already kind of bogus because the list is in the
order that devices are added, not in the order that they are probed.
Probe order has pretty much no relationship with registration order.
Probe order effectively is based on driver initialization order and
module load order.  So the ordering when suspending may be completely
different from the order devices were initialized.  I think there are
probably all kinds of implicit dependency bugs hiding in that whole
scheme.

There are the device_pm_move_* functions for manipulating the
dpm_list and trying to 'fix' the ordering, but I'm not confident that
they are effective in the way they are used.  Mostly it seems to be
used in the path of removing a device.

/anyway/ the reason I'm saying this is that devices are *supposed* to
be in the correct order for suspend/resume.  With the implicit
dependencies expected by deferred probe, it becomes really important
that devices are correctly ordered in the list.  The only way this can
be done is to move the device to the end of the list.  The agreement
when this was last discussed on the ML was to make the drivers do an
explicit move immediately after it has validated all its dependencies.
That is why it doesn't work to return -EPROBE_DEFER by default from
helpers; because it becomes really hard to audit if the drivers are
doing the right thing.

I see two solutions to this though;
1) add a new .preprobe hook to device drivers that will respect
   -EPROBE_DEFER and ignore -EPROBE_DEFER on the regular .probe.
   Probing a driver will call both, but if the .preprobe hook is
   populated, then it will also reorder dpm_list between the two
   calls.
   - This still requires modifying drivers, but at least it is
     auditable by mere-mortal reviewers.
   - It also means all bus_type code has to add a new hook.  Blech.
2) simply force devices to the end of dpm_list before each probe
   attempt (provided that it doesn't have any children).
   - I've avoided this because it adds a claim of the dpm_list_mtx
     mutex on every single probe call and adds a lot more manipulation
     of the list....
   - However, it should make your patch here actually safe.  If a
     device gets deferred, it will be guaranteed to be at the end of
     the list because it gets moved there on every probe attempt.
   - also after reading through the code (see my notes below; I'm a
     bit frustrated with the whole thing) I think it is probably the
     right thing to do.

Will you be at Connect?  I could use some time sitting in a room with
smart people to dig through this code and talk out what it should be
doing.

Grumpily yours,
g.


My notes on the issue:
device_pm_add()
 - is only called by device_add()
 - so that is easy to audit
device_pm_remove()
 - similarly is only called by device_remove()
device_pm_move_{before,after,last}()
 - Only called by device_move()
device_move()
 - Used to reparent a device
 - only 4 in-tree users:
   - drivers/media/video/pvrusb2
     - uses it to *remove* any parents to a device
     - this is a weird driver; I don't know why it is unparenting it's
       devices
   - drivers/s390/cio/device.c
     - Used to change subchannel of a device.
   - net/bluetooth/hci_sysfs.c & net/bluetooth/rfcomm/tty.c
     - 2 callsites used to unparent a device before removing the
       parent.  This actually looks rather wrong to me; but I might be
       missing something.
     - 1 call site is used to set a new parent for the rfcomm device
       after opening the tty.

As for /using/ dpm_list, I see 2 locations:
dpm_complete()
 - entries in dpm_prepared_list are spliced into dpm_list.
dpm_prepare()
 - moves entries into dpm_prepared_list
   - Hmmm... So what happens when a device is moved but it is already
     in dpm_prepared_list?  Will it accidentally put /back/ onto the
     dpm_list when it shouldn't be?  I don't see any protections
     against this.
     - It *looks* like dev->power.is_{prepared,suspended} is intended
       to protect that list, but I don't see it being used by the
       core.

There are other lists too that devices can be on instead of dpm_list:
 - dpm_suspended_list
 - dpm_late_early_list
 - dpm_noirq_list

Blech!  None of this is ******* documented.  How is this all supposed to
work and stay consistent?!?

Misc:
 - to_device is the magic macro that goes from the device->power.entry
   list item.
 - searching for power.entry also finds the relevant modifications.



> ---
>  drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c |    2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> index 566d012..b244b0c 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> @@ -1186,7 +1186,7 @@ int gpio_request(unsigned gpio, const char *label)
>  {
>  	struct gpio_desc	*desc;
>  	struct gpio_chip	*chip;
> -	int			status = -EINVAL;
> +	int			status = -EPROBE_DEFER;
>  	unsigned long		flags;
>  
>  	spin_lock_irqsave(&gpio_lock, flags);
> -- 
> 1.7.10
> 

-- 
Grant Likely, B.Sc, P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies, Ltd.

Re: [PATCH] gpiolib: Defer failed gpio requests by default

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2869 bytes --]

On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 10:32:19PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:

> be done is to move the device to the end of the list.  The agreement
> when this was last discussed on the ML was to make the drivers do an
> explicit move immediately after it has validated all its dependencies.
> That is why it doesn't work to return -EPROBE_DEFER by default from
> helpers; because it becomes really hard to audit if the drivers are
> doing the right thing.

Ah, oh dear - I missed that bit of the discussion I'm afraid and had
thought we'd gone with your option 2 below.  This means that the ASoC
usage is currently not helping anything (though it's no worse than what
we had before), and the regulator framework usage won't do the right
thing (though in practice I don't expect it to actually go off and
there's fun and games associated with that if we actually need to
suspend regulators from software anyway).

> I see two solutions to this though;
> 1) add a new .preprobe hook to device drivers that will respect
>    -EPROBE_DEFER and ignore -EPROBE_DEFER on the regular .probe.
>    Probing a driver will call both, but if the .preprobe hook is
>    populated, then it will also reorder dpm_list between the two
>    calls.
>    - This still requires modifying drivers, but at least it is
>      auditable by mere-mortal reviewers.
>    - It also means all bus_type code has to add a new hook.  Blech.

Yeah, this seems very painful, especially the bit where we have to
change a good selection of buses and drivers to implement and use it.

> 2) simply force devices to the end of dpm_list before each probe
>    attempt (provided that it doesn't have any children).
>    - I've avoided this because it adds a claim of the dpm_list_mtx
>      mutex on every single probe call and adds a lot more manipulation
>      of the list....
>    - However, it should make your patch here actually safe.  If a
>      device gets deferred, it will be guaranteed to be at the end of
>      the list because it gets moved there on every probe attempt.
>    - also after reading through the code (see my notes below; I'm a
>      bit frustrated with the whole thing) I think it is probably the
>      right thing to do.

This does feel much more robust to me than manually reordering in
drivers, we'll have to see if it causes a performance problem though and
if it does perhaps we can handle it.

I guess the other thing is that if we get a lot of drivers implementing
deferral and we stop playing around with initcall stuff then we'll loose
a reasonable proportion of the advantage of not taking the mutex and
reordering.

Either of these options would avoid the surprise that currently exists
with the API.

> Will you be at Connect?  I could use some time sitting in a room with
> smart people to dig through this code and talk out what it should be
> doing.

I won't be unfortunately.

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] gpiolib: Defer failed gpio requests by default

[Alan Stern]

On Thu, 17 May 2012, Grant Likely wrote:

> /anyway/ the reason I'm saying this is that devices are *supposed* to
> be in the correct order for suspend/resume.  With the implicit
> dependencies expected by deferred probe, it becomes really important
> that devices are correctly ordered in the list.  The only way this can
> be done is to move the device to the end of the list.  The agreement
> when this was last discussed on the ML was to make the drivers do an
> explicit move immediately after it has validated all its dependencies.
> That is why it doesn't work to return -EPROBE_DEFER by default from
> helpers; because it becomes really hard to audit if the drivers are
> doing the right thing.
> 
> I see two solutions to this though;
> 1) add a new .preprobe hook to device drivers that will respect
>    -EPROBE_DEFER and ignore -EPROBE_DEFER on the regular .probe.
>    Probing a driver will call both, but if the .preprobe hook is
>    populated, then it will also reorder dpm_list between the two
>    calls.
>    - This still requires modifying drivers, but at least it is
>      auditable by mere-mortal reviewers.
>    - It also means all bus_type code has to add a new hook.  Blech.
> 2) simply force devices to the end of dpm_list before each probe
>    attempt (provided that it doesn't have any children).
>    - I've avoided this because it adds a claim of the dpm_list_mtx
>      mutex on every single probe call and adds a lot more manipulation
>      of the list....
>    - However, it should make your patch here actually safe.  If a
>      device gets deferred, it will be guaranteed to be at the end of
>      the list because it gets moved there on every probe attempt.
>    - also after reading through the code (see my notes below; I'm a
>      bit frustrated with the whole thing) I think it is probably the
>      right thing to do.

2) seems like the best approach.  A little extra list manipulation 
shouldn't hurt anything (the bits don't wear out...).

> As for /using/ dpm_list, I see 2 locations:
> dpm_complete()
>  - entries in dpm_prepared_list are spliced into dpm_list.
> dpm_prepare()
>  - moves entries into dpm_prepared_list
>    - Hmmm... So what happens when a device is moved but it is already
>      in dpm_prepared_list?  Will it accidentally put /back/ onto the
>      dpm_list when it shouldn't be?  I don't see any protections
>      against this.

It should never happen.  A device gets put on the dpm_prepared_list 
after its .prepare method is called, and one of the things that method 
is supposed to do is guarantee that no more children will be registered 
beneath the device.  No registrations means no probes -- or at least, 
it did until the deferred probing mechanism was created.

It may turn out to be necessary to make the deferred probing threads 
freezable, so they will not run while the dpm lists are being used.

>      - It *looks* like dev->power.is_{prepared,suspended} is intended
>        to protect that list, but I don't see it being used by the
>        core.

IIRC, those flags is used mainly for error detection and reporting 
(also for error recovery, when a suspend is aborted in the middle).  
They don't protect anything.

> There are other lists too that devices can be on instead of dpm_list:
>  - dpm_suspended_list
>  - dpm_late_early_list
>  - dpm_noirq_list
> 
> Blech!  None of this is ******* documented.  How is this all supposed to
> work and stay consistent?!?

That's not entirely fair.  The overall process is documented in
Documentation/power/devices.txt.  The list headers themselves are
supposed to be private to drivers/base/power/main.c, although they
currently aren't declared static for some reason -- an oversight?

Alan Stern

[PATCH] gpiolib: Defer failed gpio requests by default

[Mark Brown]

Since users must be explicitly provided with a GPIO number in order to
request one the overwhelmingly common case for failing to request will
be that the required GPIO driver has not yet registered and we should
therefore defer until it has registered.

In order to avoid having to code this logic in individual drivers have
gpio_request() return -EPROBE_DEFER when failing to look up the GPIO.
Drivers which don't want this behaviour can override it if they desire.

Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
---
 drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
index 120b2a0..de0213c 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
@@ -1186,7 +1186,7 @@ int gpio_request(unsigned gpio, const char *label)
 {
 	struct gpio_desc	*desc;
 	struct gpio_chip	*chip;
-	int			status = -EINVAL;
+	int			status = -EPROBE_DEFER;
 	unsigned long		flags;
 
 	spin_lock_irqsave(&gpio_lock, flags);
-- 
1.7.10

Re: [PATCH] gpiolib: Defer failed gpio requests by default

[Linus Walleij]

On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Mark Brown
<broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> wrote:

> Since users must be explicitly provided with a GPIO number in order to
> request one the overwhelmingly common case for failing to request will
> be that the required GPIO driver has not yet registered and we should
> therefore defer until it has registered.
>
> In order to avoid having to code this logic in individual drivers have
> gpio_request() return -EPROBE_DEFER when failing to look up the GPIO.
> Drivers which don't want this behaviour can override it if they desire.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>

While this makes perfect sense to me I would *really* like to
wait for Grants opinion on this one patch, him having devised
the deferral and being GPIO maintainer.

Is any deferral of this deferral mechanism causing you to
defer important work right now?

Yours,
Linus Walleij

Re: [PATCH] gpiolib: Defer failed gpio requests by default

[Grant Likely]

On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 9:31 PM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Mark Brown
> <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> wrote:
>
>> Since users must be explicitly provided with a GPIO number in order to
>> request one the overwhelmingly common case for failing to request will
>> be that the required GPIO driver has not yet registered and we should
>> therefore defer until it has registered.
>>
>> In order to avoid having to code this logic in individual drivers have
>> gpio_request() return -EPROBE_DEFER when failing to look up the GPIO.
>> Drivers which don't want this behaviour can override it if they desire.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
>
> While this makes perfect sense to me I would *really* like to
> wait for Grants opinion on this one patch, him having devised
> the deferral and being GPIO maintainer.
>
> Is any deferral of this deferral mechanism causing you to
> defer important work right now?

I'm fine with this patch, but the patch that adds the twizzling of the
dpm_list when probing needs some tweaking, and this patch must be
applied after that one.  I'll go and reply to that patch now (and cc
you if you're not already).

g.

Re: [PATCH] gpiolib: Defer failed gpio requests by default

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 597 bytes --]

On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 10:54:41PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:

> I'm fine with this patch, but the patch that adds the twizzling of the
> dpm_list when probing needs some tweaking, and this patch must be
> applied after that one.  I'll go and reply to that patch now (and cc
> you if you're not already).

Given how many subsystems are already doing the -EPROBE_DEFER stuff it
seems like we're already at the point where the core logic needs to be
bugfixes I'm not sure it's worth holding off, any system that's hitting
this is already buggy anyway so at worst we're just shifting the bug
around.

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] gpiolib: Defer failed gpio requests by default

[Linus Walleij]

On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Mark Brown
<broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> wrote:

> Since users must be explicitly provided with a GPIO number in order to
> request one the overwhelmingly common case for failing to request will
> be that the required GPIO driver has not yet registered and we should
> therefore defer until it has registered.
>
> In order to avoid having to code this logic in individual drivers have
> gpio_request() return -EPROBE_DEFER when failing to look up the GPIO.
> Drivers which don't want this behaviour can override it if they desire.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>

Following Greg's application of the required prerequisite patch
I have merged this patch.

Grant, shout if you feel bad about it, ACK if you like it :-)

Linus Walleij