Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CGME20200108115027eucas1p1d3645ba53703780679c662921efbca78@eucas1p1.samsung.com>
 <20200108115007.31095-1-m.szyprowski@samsung.com> <20200108115007.31095-2-m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
 <CA+Px+wXkFE5b_8bLz7-c95TvEdqHGD5s-XKRYMVr40xQkqTWxQ@mail.gmail.com> <83169752-ac05-d1b1-ece9-fbe1109287cf@samsung.com>
In-Reply-To: <83169752-ac05-d1b1-ece9-fbe1109287cf@samsung.com>
From:   Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 10 Jan 2020 09:05:59 +0800
Message-ID: <CA+Px+wWiZ9MWwi-moXo9rJrbgLFVEbOqjQMhOZmm5mRL7EeMbQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ASoC: max98090: fix lockdep warning
To:     Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
Cc:     ALSA development <alsa-devel@alsa-project.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Samsung SOC <linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
        Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@samsung.com>,
        Dylan Reid <dgreid@google.com>,
        Jimmy Cheng-Yi Chiang <cychiang@google.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 7:09 PM Marek Szyprowski
<m.szyprowski@samsung.com> wrote:
> On 09.01.2020 06:36, Tzung-Bi Shih wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 7:50 PM Marek Szyprowski
> > <m.szyprowski@samsung.com> wrote:
> >> Fix this by introducing a separate mutex only for serializing the SHDN
> >> hardware register related operations.
> > This fix makes less sense to me.  We used dapm_mutex intentionally
> > because: both DAPM and userspace mixer control would change SHDN bit
> > at the same time.

We should not use a separate lock.  Either mixer control or DAPM would
change the SHDN bit.  The patch overlooks the calling path from DAPM.
As a result, DAPM can change the bit in the middle of mixer control.

> Nope. This is just a lockdep warning about possible hypothetical
> situation on the test system during the normal boot. It doesn't mean
> that the circular dependency actually happens (if so, it would end in
> deadlock). It also doesn't mean that such circular dependency can be
> really triggered, because some other dependencies that not known to
> lockdep engine might protect against it. However the easiest way to fix
> it is to use fine-grained locking instead of reusing some framework
> locks for other purposes. Such approach is also usually a good practice.

If the possible circular locking is a hypothetical situation, shall we
ignore it since we are very sure userspace cannot see the control
devices when building the sound card?