From: Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@samsung.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>,
Ben Dooks <ben@trinity.fluff.org>
Cc: driverdevel <devel@driverdev.osuosl.org>,
Linux MIPS Mailing List <linux-mips@linux-mips.org>,
"spear-devel@list.st.com" <spear-devel@list.st.com>,
David Daney <ddaney.cavm@gmail.com>,
Linux-sh list <linux-sh@vger.kernel.org>,
"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
"patches@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com"
<patches@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org"
<platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, "m@bues.ch" <m@bues.ch>,
"linux-input@vger.kernel.org" <linux-input@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] gpio: gpiolib: set gpiochip_remove retval to void
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 08:57:32 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5396AC5C.2080108@samsung.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D17259A1F@AcuExch.aculab.com>
On 06/09/2014 03:43 PM, David Laight wrote:
> From: Of Andrzej Hajda
> ...
>>> You can't error out on module unload, although that's not really relevant
>>> here. gpiochip_remove() is typically called when the device that registered
>>> the GPIO chip is unbound. And despite some remove() callbacks having a
>>> return type of int you can not abort the removal of a device.
>>
>> It is a design flaw in many subsystems having providers and consumers,
>> not only GPIO. The same situation is with clock providers, regulators,
>> phys, drm_panels, ..., at least it was such last time I have tested it.
>>
>> The problem is that many frameworks assumes that lifetime of provider is
>> always bigger than lifetime of its consumers, and this is wrong
>> assumption - usually it is not possible to prevent unbinding driver from
>> device, so if the device is a provider there is no way to inform
>> consumers about his removal.
>>
>> Some solution for such problems is to use some kind of availability
>> callbacks for requesting resources (gpios, clocks, regulators,...)
>> instead of simple 'getters' (clk_get, gpiod_get). Callbacks should
>> guarantee that the resource is always valid between callback reporting
>> its availability and callback reporting its removal. Such approach seems
>> to be complicated at the first sight but it should allow to make the
>> code safe and as a bonus it will allow to avoid deferred probing.
>> Btw I have send already RFC for such framework [1].
>
> Callbacks for delete are generally a locking nightmare.
> A two-way handshake is also usually needed to avoid problems
> with concurrent disconnect requests.
The framework I have proposed is lock-less[1] and concurrent requests
are serialized so both objections are invalid.
[1]: in fact the framework uses spinlock, but only to protect internal
list simple operations, and even this could be converted to fully
lock-less implementation.
Andrzej
>
> David
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-06-10 6:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-29 21:54 [PATCH] gpio: removes all usage of gpiochip_remove retval abdoulaye berthe
2014-05-29 22:14 ` David Daney
[not found] ` <CABprBybQ-Jyk95zCqnoWjjyzhNyHVbsbEhb=vA5d=ZYp95_bFA@mail.gmail.com>
2014-05-29 23:40 ` Stephen Rothwell
2014-05-30 11:30 ` [PATCH 1/2] " abdoulaye berthe
2014-05-30 11:30 ` [PATCH 2/2] gpio: gpiolib: set gpiochip_remove retval to void abdoulaye berthe
2014-05-30 11:39 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2014-05-30 15:48 ` Ralf Baechle
2014-05-30 17:33 ` David Daney
2014-05-30 18:16 ` Lars-Peter Clausen
[not found] ` <20140608231823.GB10112@trinity.fluff.org>
[not found] ` <53959A93.7080308@metafoo.de>
2014-06-09 13:15 ` Andrzej Hajda
[not found] ` <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D17259A1F@AcuExch.aculab.com>
2014-06-10 6:57 ` Andrzej Hajda [this message]
2014-05-30 11:37 ` [PATCH 1/2] gpio: removes all usage of gpiochip_remove retval abdoulaye berthe
2014-05-30 11:37 ` [PATCH 2/2] gpio: gpiolib: set gpiochip_remove retval to void abdoulaye berthe
2014-05-30 15:59 ` [PATCH 1/2] gpio: removes all usage of gpiochip_remove retval Alexandre Courbot
2014-06-04 18:22 ` [PATCH 0/2] gpiochip remove abdoulaye berthe
2014-06-04 18:22 ` [PATCH 1/2] gpio: removes all usage of gpiochip_remove retval abdoulaye berthe
2014-07-04 22:35 ` Linus Walleij
2014-07-05 16:28 ` [PATCH 2/2] gpio: gpiolib: set gpiochip_remove retval to void abdoulaye berthe
2014-07-05 20:28 ` [PATCH] gpio: removes all usage of gpiochip_remove retval abdoulaye berthe
2014-07-09 7:45 ` Linus Walleij
2014-07-12 20:30 ` [PATCH 0/3] remove all usage of gpio_remove retval abdoulaye berthe
2014-07-12 20:30 ` [PATCH 1/1] gpio: remove all usage of gpio_remove retval in driver/gpio abdoulaye berthe
2014-07-12 20:30 ` [PATCH 2/2] pinctrl: remove all usage of gpio_remove ret val in driver/pinctl abdoulaye berthe
2014-07-22 14:34 ` Linus Walleij
2014-07-12 20:30 ` [PATCH 3/3] driver:gpio remove all usage of gpio_remove retval in driver abdoulaye berthe
2014-07-22 15:08 ` Linus Walleij
2014-07-29 11:30 ` Tomi Valkeinen
2014-06-04 18:22 ` [PATCH 2/2] gpio: gpiolib: set gpiochip_remove retval to void abdoulaye berthe
2014-06-08 12:12 ` Alexandre Courbot
2014-06-09 21:22 ` abdoulaye berthe
2014-07-04 22:55 ` Linus Walleij
2014-06-04 18:35 ` [PATCH 0/2] gpiochip remove abdoulaye berthe
2014-05-29 23:25 ` [PATCH] gpio: removes all usage of gpiochip_remove retval Greg KH
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5396AC5C.2080108@samsung.com \
--to=a.hajda@samsung.com \
--cc=David.Laight@ACULAB.COM \
--cc=ben@trinity.fluff.org \
--cc=ddaney.cavm@gmail.com \
--cc=devel@driverdev.osuosl.org \
--cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \
--cc=lars@metafoo.de \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-input@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mips@linux-mips.org \
--cc=linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-sh@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=m@bues.ch \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=patches@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--cc=platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=spear-devel@list.st.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).