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:   Sun, 30 Jul 2023 23:55:59 +0200
From:   =?iso-8859-2?Q?Micha=B3_Miros=B3aw?= <mirq-linux@rere.qmqm.pl>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>,
        Svyatoslav Ryhel <clamor95@gmail.com>
Cc:     Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@kernel.org>, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] i2c: Add GPIO-based hotplug gate
Message-ID: <ZMbcb0yuTz6l6BYh@qmqm.qmqm.pl>
References: <20230729160857.6332-1-clamor95@gmail.com>
 <20230729160857.6332-3-clamor95@gmail.com>
 <25858c22-ef92-2136-67ef-0d27364c1600@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <25858c22-ef92-2136-67ef-0d27364c1600@linaro.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Jul 30, 2023 at 10:30:56PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 29/07/2023 18:08, Svyatoslav Ryhel wrote:
> > From: Micha? Miros?aw <mirq-linux@rere.qmqm.pl>
> > 
> > Implement driver for hot-plugged I2C busses, where some devices on
> > a bus are hot-pluggable and their presence is indicated by GPIO line.
[...] 
> > +	priv->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> > +	if (priv->irq < 0)
> > +		return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, priv->irq,
> > +				     "failed to get IRQ %d\n", priv->irq);
> > +
> > +	ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(&pdev->dev, priv->irq, NULL,
> > +					i2c_hotplug_interrupt,
> > +					IRQF_ONESHOT | IRQF_SHARED,
> 
> Shared IRQ with devm is a recipe for disaster. Are you sure this is a
> shared one? You have a remove() function which also points that it is
> not safe. You can:
> 1. investigate to be sure it is 100% safe (please document why do you
> think it is safe)

Could you elaborate on what is unsafe in using devm with shared
interrupts (as compared to non-shared or not devm-managed)?

The remove function is indeed reversing the order of cleanup. The
shutdown path can be fixed by removing `remove()` and adding
`devm_add_action_or_reset(...deactivate)` before the IRQ is registered.

Best Regards
Micha? Miros?aw