Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] regmap: teach regmap to use raw spinlocks if
 requested in the config
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc:     Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        Hou Zhiqiang <Zhiqiang.Hou@nxp.com>,
        Biwen Li <biwen.li@nxp.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20210825205041.927788-1-vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
 <20210825205041.927788-2-vladimir.oltean@nxp.com> <875yvr3j5c.ffs@tglx>
From:   Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Message-ID: <19a98ebe-507b-d60e-47a3-9ffabfb24ca3@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Date:   Mon, 30 Aug 2021 13:02:33 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <875yvr3j5c.ffs@tglx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 27/08/2021 01.01, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 25 2021 at 23:50, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> 
>> Some drivers might access regmap in a context where a raw spinlock is
>> held. An example is drivers/irqchip/irq-ls-extirq.c, which calls
>> regmap_update_bits() from struct irq_chip :: irq_set_type, which is a
>> method called by __irq_set_trigger() under the desc->lock raw spin lock.
>>
>> Since desc->lock is a raw spin lock and the regmap internal lock for
>> mmio is a plain spinlock (which can become sleepable on RT), this is an
>> invalid locking scheme and we get a splat stating that this is a
>> "[ BUG: Invalid wait context ]".
>>
>> It seems reasonable for regmap to have an option use a raw spinlock too,
>> so add that in the config such that drivers can request it.
> 
> What's reasonable about that?
> 
> What exactly prevents the regmap locking to use a raw spinlock
> unconditionally?

Perhaps this:

        /*
         * When we write in fast-paths with regmap_bulk_write() don't
allocate
         * scratch buffers with sleeping allocations.
         */
        if ((bus && bus->fast_io) || config->fast_io)
                map->alloc_flags = GFP_ATOMIC;
        else
                map->alloc_flags = GFP_KERNEL;

i.e. the regmap code can actually do allocations under whatever internal
lock it uses. So ISTM that any regmap that uses a raw_spinlock (whether
unconditionally or via Vladimir's opt-in) cannot be used with
regmap_bulk_write().

ISTM using regmap for mmio makes things more complicated than necessary.

Rasmus