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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88125C07520 for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 10:49:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E01920861 for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 10:49:23 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 4E01920861 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727773AbeIMP6P (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Sep 2018 11:58:15 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:45880 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726450AbeIMP6P (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Sep 2018 11:58:15 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3A9680D; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 03:49:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e107981-ln.cambridge.arm.com (e107981-ln.emea.arm.com [10.4.13.117]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4E5EF3F557; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 03:49:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 11:49:14 +0100 From: Lorenzo Pieralisi To: Jisheng Zhang Cc: Jingoo Han , Joao Pinto , Bjorn Helgaas , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] PCI: dwc: fix scheduling while atomic issues Message-ID: <20180913104914.GA2051@e107981-ln.cambridge.arm.com> References: <20180829110408.556c3622@xhacker.debian> <20180910165722.38218779@xhacker.debian> <20180913091534.GB32721@e107981-ln.cambridge.arm.com> <20180913182926.365d155b@xhacker.debian> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180913182926.365d155b@xhacker.debian> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 06:29:54PM +0800, Jisheng Zhang wrote: > Hi Lorenzo, > > On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 10:15:34 +0100 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 04:57:22PM +0800, Jisheng Zhang wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 11:04:08 +0800 Jisheng Zhang wrote: > > > > > > > When programming inbound/outbound atu, we call usleep_range() after > > > > each checking PCIE_ATU_ENABLE bit. Unfortunately, the atu programming > > > > can be called in atomic context: > > > > > > > > inbound atu programming could be called through > > > > pci_epc_write_header() > > > > =>dw_pcie_ep_write_header() > > > > =>dw_pcie_prog_inbound_atu() > > > > > > > > outbound atu programming could be called through > > > > pci_bus_read_config_dword() > > > > =>dw_pcie_rd_conf() > > > > =>dw_pcie_prog_outbound_atu() > > > > > > > > Fix this issue by calling mdelay() instead. > > > > > > Any comments about this patch? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Jisheng > > > > > > > > > > > Fixes: f8aed6ec624f ("PCI: dwc: designware: Add EP mode support") > > > > Fixes: d8bbeb39fbf3 ("PCI: designware: Wait for iATU enable") > > > > Can you split it into two patches and repost it please ? It will make > > everyone's life easier to backport it if there is need, I will apply > > then. > > IIUC, the purpose of this split is to make the backport to stable easier. If > so, I realise that the Fixes tags were not enough, we missed: > > Fixes: edd45e396829 ("PCI: dwc: designware: Move _unroll configurations to a > separate function") > > I'm not sure how to handle this case. From another side, the issue to be > fixed is the same: call sleep in atomic context in the same driver, is it > better to use one patch? > > As for stable tree, I could send out separate patches instead. What do you > think? OK, I will merge the patch as-is and we will handle the stable backports when Greg sends the patches out. Lorenzo