If static allocation and dynamic allocation GPIOs are present,
dynamic allocation pollutes the numberspace for static allocation,
causing static allocation to fail.
Enfore dynamic allocation above GPIO_DYNAMIC_BASE.
Seen on a GTA04 when omap-gpio (static) and twl-gpio (dynamic)
raced.
On that device it is fixed invasively by
commit 92bf78b33b0b4 ("gpio: omap: use dynamic allocation of base")
but lets also fix that for devices where there is still
a mixture of static and dynamic allocation.
Fixes: 7b61212f2a07 ("gpiolib: Get rid of ARCH_NR_GPIOS")
Suggested-by: [email protected]
Signed-off-by: Andreas Kemnade <[email protected]>
---
drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c | 4 ++++
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
index 19bd23044b017..18b68d0aec7db 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
@@ -188,6 +188,10 @@ static int gpiochip_find_base(int ngpio)
int base = GPIO_DYNAMIC_BASE;
list_for_each_entry(gdev, &gpio_devices, list) {
+ /* do not pollute area for static allocation */
+ if (gdev->base < GPIO_DYNAMIC_BASE)
+ continue;
+
/* found a free space? */
if (gdev->base >= base + ngpio)
break;
--
2.39.2
Le 27/04/2023 à 00:03, Andreas Kemnade a écrit :
> [Vous ne recevez pas souvent de courriers de [email protected]. Découvrez pourquoi ceci est important à https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
>
> If static allocation and dynamic allocation GPIOs are present,
> dynamic allocation pollutes the numberspace for static allocation,
> causing static allocation to fail.
> Enfore dynamic allocation above GPIO_DYNAMIC_BASE.
Hum ....
Commit 7b61212f2a07 ("gpiolib: Get rid of ARCH_NR_GPIOS") was supposed
to enforce dynamic allocation above GPIO_DYNAMIC_BASE already.
Can you describe what is going wrong exactly with the above commit ?
Thanks
Christophe
>
> Seen on a GTA04 when omap-gpio (static) and twl-gpio (dynamic)
> raced.
> On that device it is fixed invasively by
> commit 92bf78b33b0b4 ("gpio: omap: use dynamic allocation of base")
> but lets also fix that for devices where there is still
> a mixture of static and dynamic allocation.
>
> Fixes: 7b61212f2a07 ("gpiolib: Get rid of ARCH_NR_GPIOS")
> Suggested-by: [email protected]
> Signed-off-by: Andreas Kemnade <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c | 4 ++++
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> index 19bd23044b017..18b68d0aec7db 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> @@ -188,6 +188,10 @@ static int gpiochip_find_base(int ngpio)
> int base = GPIO_DYNAMIC_BASE;
>
> list_for_each_entry(gdev, &gpio_devices, list) {
> + /* do not pollute area for static allocation */
> + if (gdev->base < GPIO_DYNAMIC_BASE)
> + continue;
> +
> /* found a free space? */
> if (gdev->base >= base + ngpio)
> break;
> --
> 2.39.2
>
On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 8:40 AM Christophe Leroy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Le 27/04/2023 à 00:03, Andreas Kemnade a écrit :
> > [Vous ne recevez pas souvent de courriers de [email protected]. Découvrez pourquoi ceci est important à https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
> >
> > If static allocation and dynamic allocation GPIOs are present,
> > dynamic allocation pollutes the numberspace for static allocation,
> > causing static allocation to fail.
> > Enfore dynamic allocation above GPIO_DYNAMIC_BASE.
>
> Hum ....
>
> Commit 7b61212f2a07 ("gpiolib: Get rid of ARCH_NR_GPIOS") was supposed
> to enforce dynamic allocation above GPIO_DYNAMIC_BASE already.
>
> Can you describe what is going wrong exactly with the above commit ?
Above commit only works to the first dynamic allocation, if you need
more than one with static ones present it mistakenly will give you a
base _below_ DYNAMIC_BASE.
However, this change is just PoC I proposed, the conditional and
action should be slightly different to cover a corner case, when
statically allocated chip overlaps the DYNAMIC_BASE, i.e. gdev->base <
DYNAMIC_BASE, while gdev->base + gdev->ngpio >= DYNAMIC_BASE.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Le 27/04/2023 à 08:00, Andy Shevchenko a écrit :
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 8:40 AM Christophe Leroy
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Le 27/04/2023 à 00:03, Andreas Kemnade a écrit :
>>> [Vous ne recevez pas souvent de courriers de [email protected]. Découvrez pourquoi ceci est important à https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
>>>
>>> If static allocation and dynamic allocation GPIOs are present,
>>> dynamic allocation pollutes the numberspace for static allocation,
>>> causing static allocation to fail.
>>> Enfore dynamic allocation above GPIO_DYNAMIC_BASE.
>>
>> Hum ....
>>
>> Commit 7b61212f2a07 ("gpiolib: Get rid of ARCH_NR_GPIOS") was supposed
>> to enforce dynamic allocation above GPIO_DYNAMIC_BASE already.
>>
>> Can you describe what is going wrong exactly with the above commit ?
>
> Above commit only works to the first dynamic allocation, if you need
> more than one with static ones present it mistakenly will give you a
> base _below_ DYNAMIC_BASE.
Ah right, that needs to be fixed.
>
> However, this change is just PoC I proposed, the conditional and
> action should be slightly different to cover a corner case, when
> statically allocated chip overlaps the DYNAMIC_BASE, i.e. gdev->base <
> DYNAMIC_BASE, while gdev->base + gdev->ngpio >= DYNAMIC_BASE.
>
Yes you are right, that's gdev->base + gdev->ngpio that should be checked.
Christophe
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 06:20:34 +0000
Christophe Leroy <[email protected]> wrote:
> Le 27/04/2023 à 08:00, Andy Shevchenko a écrit :
> > On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 8:40 AM Christophe Leroy
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Le 27/04/2023 à 00:03, Andreas Kemnade a écrit :
> >>> [Vous ne recevez pas souvent de courriers de [email protected]. Découvrez pourquoi ceci est important à https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
> >>>
> >>> If static allocation and dynamic allocation GPIOs are present,
> >>> dynamic allocation pollutes the numberspace for static allocation,
> >>> causing static allocation to fail.
> >>> Enfore dynamic allocation above GPIO_DYNAMIC_BASE.
> >>
> >> Hum ....
> >>
> >> Commit 7b61212f2a07 ("gpiolib: Get rid of ARCH_NR_GPIOS") was supposed
> >> to enforce dynamic allocation above GPIO_DYNAMIC_BASE already.
> >>
> >> Can you describe what is going wrong exactly with the above commit ?
> >
> > Above commit only works to the first dynamic allocation, if you need
> > more than one with static ones present it mistakenly will give you a
> > base _below_ DYNAMIC_BASE.
>
> Ah right, that needs to be fixed.
>
> >
> > However, this change is just PoC I proposed, the conditional and
> > action should be slightly different to cover a corner case, when
> > statically allocated chip overlaps the DYNAMIC_BASE, i.e. gdev->base <
> > DYNAMIC_BASE, while gdev->base + gdev->ngpio >= DYNAMIC_BASE.
> >
>
> Yes you are right, that's gdev->base + gdev->ngpio that should be checked.
>
and that not with simple continue or base might simply stay at DYNAMIC_BASE.
I will send a v2 of this patch with refined logic.
Regards,
Andreas
On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 1:37 PM Andreas Kemnade <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 06:20:34 +0000
> Christophe Leroy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Le 27/04/2023 à 08:00, Andy Shevchenko a écrit :
> > > On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 8:40 AM Christophe Leroy
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Le 27/04/2023 à 00:03, Andreas Kemnade a écrit :
> > >>> [Vous ne recevez pas souvent de courriers de [email protected]. Découvrez pourquoi ceci est important à https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
> > >>>
> > >>> If static allocation and dynamic allocation GPIOs are present,
> > >>> dynamic allocation pollutes the numberspace for static allocation,
> > >>> causing static allocation to fail.
> > >>> Enfore dynamic allocation above GPIO_DYNAMIC_BASE.
> > >>
> > >> Hum ....
> > >>
> > >> Commit 7b61212f2a07 ("gpiolib: Get rid of ARCH_NR_GPIOS") was supposed
> > >> to enforce dynamic allocation above GPIO_DYNAMIC_BASE already.
> > >>
> > >> Can you describe what is going wrong exactly with the above commit ?
> > >
> > > Above commit only works to the first dynamic allocation, if you need
> > > more than one with static ones present it mistakenly will give you a
> > > base _below_ DYNAMIC_BASE.
> >
> > Ah right, that needs to be fixed.
> >
> > >
> > > However, this change is just PoC I proposed, the conditional and
> > > action should be slightly different to cover a corner case, when
> > > statically allocated chip overlaps the DYNAMIC_BASE, i.e. gdev->base <
> > > DYNAMIC_BASE, while gdev->base + gdev->ngpio >= DYNAMIC_BASE.
> > >
> >
> > Yes you are right, that's gdev->base + gdev->ngpio that should be checked.
> >
> and that not with simple continue or base might simply stay at DYNAMIC_BASE.
>
> I will send a v2 of this patch with refined logic.
Actually it would be nice to integrate a warning (if we don't have it
yet) when adding a GPIO chip with a static allocation and which will
overlap the dynamic base. Can you add that into your v2?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 1:55 PM Christophe Leroy
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Le 27/04/2023 à 12:46, Andy Shevchenko a écrit :
> > On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 1:37 PM Andreas Kemnade <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 06:20:34 +0000
> >> Christophe Leroy <[email protected]> wrote:
...
> >> I will send a v2 of this patch with refined logic.
> >
> > Actually it would be nice to integrate a warning (if we don't have it
> > yet) when adding a GPIO chip with a static allocation and which will
> > overlap the dynamic base. Can you add that into your v2?
> >
>
> At the time being we have a warning for all static allocations,
> allthough their has been some discussion about reverting it, see commit
> 502df79b8605 ("gpiolib: Warn on drivers still using static gpiobase
> allocation")
Ah, even better! Then no need to have a specific one, thanks!
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Le 27/04/2023 à 12:46, Andy Shevchenko a écrit :
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 1:37 PM Andreas Kemnade <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 06:20:34 +0000
>> Christophe Leroy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Le 27/04/2023 à 08:00, Andy Shevchenko a écrit :
>>>> On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 8:40 AM Christophe Leroy
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Le 27/04/2023 à 00:03, Andreas Kemnade a écrit :
>>>>>> [Vous ne recevez pas souvent de courriers de [email protected]. Découvrez pourquoi ceci est important à https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If static allocation and dynamic allocation GPIOs are present,
>>>>>> dynamic allocation pollutes the numberspace for static allocation,
>>>>>> causing static allocation to fail.
>>>>>> Enfore dynamic allocation above GPIO_DYNAMIC_BASE.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hum ....
>>>>>
>>>>> Commit 7b61212f2a07 ("gpiolib: Get rid of ARCH_NR_GPIOS") was supposed
>>>>> to enforce dynamic allocation above GPIO_DYNAMIC_BASE already.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you describe what is going wrong exactly with the above commit ?
>>>>
>>>> Above commit only works to the first dynamic allocation, if you need
>>>> more than one with static ones present it mistakenly will give you a
>>>> base _below_ DYNAMIC_BASE.
>>>
>>> Ah right, that needs to be fixed.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> However, this change is just PoC I proposed, the conditional and
>>>> action should be slightly different to cover a corner case, when
>>>> statically allocated chip overlaps the DYNAMIC_BASE, i.e. gdev->base <
>>>> DYNAMIC_BASE, while gdev->base + gdev->ngpio >= DYNAMIC_BASE.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes you are right, that's gdev->base + gdev->ngpio that should be checked.
>>>
>> and that not with simple continue or base might simply stay at DYNAMIC_BASE.
>>
>> I will send a v2 of this patch with refined logic.
>
> Actually it would be nice to integrate a warning (if we don't have it
> yet) when adding a GPIO chip with a static allocation and which will
> overlap the dynamic base. Can you add that into your v2?
>
At the time being we have a warning for all static allocations,
allthough their has been some discussion about reverting it, see commit
502df79b8605 ("gpiolib: Warn on drivers still using static gpiobase
allocation")
Christophe