Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 7 Nov 2022 09:39:26 +0000
From:   Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>
To:     Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@collabora.com>
Cc:     Samuel Holland <samuel@sholland.org>, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>,
        =?utf-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBNaXJvc8WCYXc=?= <mirq-linux@rere.qmqm.pl>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        "Russell King (Oracle)" <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: axp20x: Do not sleep in the power off handler
Message-ID: <Y2jSTotJgjUx1tHV@google.com>
References: <20221105212909.6526-1-samuel@sholland.org>
 <a3488b0c-dbc7-0109-8ba7-9f319f018e22@collabora.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <a3488b0c-dbc7-0109-8ba7-9f319f018e22@collabora.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 07 Nov 2022, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:

> On 11/6/22 00:29, Samuel Holland wrote:
> > Since commit 856c288b0039 ("ARM: Use do_kernel_power_off()"), the
> > function axp20x_power_off() now runs inside a RCU read-side critical
> > section, so it is not allowed to call msleep(). Use mdelay() instead.
> > 
> > Fixes: 856c288b0039 ("ARM: Use do_kernel_power_off()")
> > Signed-off-by: Samuel Holland <samuel@sholland.org>
> > ---
> > 
> >  drivers/mfd/axp20x.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/axp20x.c b/drivers/mfd/axp20x.c
> > index 88a212a8168c..880c41fa7021 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mfd/axp20x.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mfd/axp20x.c
> > @@ -842,7 +842,7 @@ static void axp20x_power_off(void)
> >  		     AXP20X_OFF);
> >  
> >  	/* Give capacitors etc. time to drain to avoid kernel panic msg. */
> > -	msleep(500);
> > +	mdelay(500);
> >  }
> >  
> >  int axp20x_match_device(struct axp20x_dev *axp20x)
> 
> ARM was doing local_irq_disable() on power-off before
> do_kernel_power_off() was introduced, so this should've been incorrect
> for a couple years at least. If I'm not missing anything.

Is that a review?  Care to provide a tag?

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]