On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 11:10:27AM +0100, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
> Hi
> 
> Am 03.11.20 um 10:52 schrieb Maxime Ripard:
> > On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 10:10:41AM +0800, Tian Tao wrote:
> >> Add new api devm_drm_irq_install() to register interrupts,
> >> no need to call drm_irq_uninstall() when the drm module is removed.
> >>
> >> v2:
> >> fixed the wrong parameter.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Tian Tao <tiantao6@hisilicon.com>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>  include/drm/drm_drv.h     |  3 ++-
> >>  2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c
> >> index cd162d4..0fe5243 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c
> >> @@ -39,6 +39,7 @@
> >>  #include <drm/drm_color_mgmt.h>
> >>  #include <drm/drm_drv.h>
> >>  #include <drm/drm_file.h>
> >> +#include <drm/drm_irq.h>
> >>  #include <drm/drm_managed.h>
> >>  #include <drm/drm_mode_object.h>
> >>  #include <drm/drm_print.h>
> >> @@ -678,6 +679,28 @@ static int devm_drm_dev_init(struct device *parent,
> >>  	return ret;
> >>  }
> >>  
> >> +static void devm_drm_dev_irq_uninstall(void *data)
> >> +{
> >> +	drm_irq_uninstall(data);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +int devm_drm_irq_install(struct device *parent,
> >> +			 struct drm_device *dev, int irq)
> >> +{
> >> +	int ret;
> >> +
> >> +	ret = drm_irq_install(dev, irq);
> >> +	if (ret)
> >> +		return ret;
> >> +
> >> +	ret = devm_add_action(parent, devm_drm_dev_irq_uninstall, dev);
> >> +	if (ret)
> >> +		devm_drm_dev_irq_uninstall(dev);
> >> +
> >> +	return ret;
> >> +}
> >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(devm_drm_irq_install);
> >> +
> > 
> > Shouldn't we tie the IRQ to the drm device (so with drmm_add_action)
> > instead of tying it to the underlying device?
> 
> If the HW device goes away, there won't be any more interrupts. So it's
> similar to devm_ functions for I/O memory. Why would you use the drmm_
> interface?

drm_irq_install/uninstall do more that just calling request_irq and
free_irq though, they will also run (among other things) the irq-related
hooks in the drm driver (irq_preinstall, irq_postinstall irq_uninstall)
and wake anything waiting for a vblank to occur, so we need the DRM
device and driver to still be around when we run drm_irq_uninstall.
That's why (I assume) you have to pass the drm_device as an argument and
not simply the device.

This probably works in most case since you would allocate the drm_device
with devm_drm_dev_alloc, and then run drm_irq_install, so in the undoing
phase you would have first drm_irq_uninstall to run, and everything is
fine.

However, if one doesn't use devm_drm_dev_alloc but would use
devm_drm_irq_install, you would have first remove being called that
would free the drm device, and then drm_irq_uninstall which will use a
free'd pointer.

So yeah, even though the interrupt line itself is tied to the device,
all the logic we have around the interrupt that is dealt with in
drm_irq_install is really tied to the drm_device. And since we tie the
life of drm_device to its underlying device already (either implicitly
through devm_drm_dev_alloc, or explictly through manual allocation in
probe and free in remove) we can't end up in a situation where the
drm_device outlives its device.

Maxime