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;
Message-ID: <b9183dfc-8e8a-9602-f31c-5de9e27acb88@linaro.org>
Date:   Mon, 31 Jul 2023 08:58:14 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.13.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] i2c: Add GPIO-based hotplug gate
Content-Language: en-US
To:     =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBNaXJvc8WCYXc=?= <mirq-linux@rere.qmqm.pl>,
        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
References: <20230729160857.6332-1-clamor95@gmail.com>
 <20230729160857.6332-3-clamor95@gmail.com>
 <25858c22-ef92-2136-67ef-0d27364c1600@linaro.org>
 <ZMbcb0yuTz6l6BYh@qmqm.qmqm.pl>
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <ZMbcb0yuTz6l6BYh@qmqm.qmqm.pl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 30/07/2023 23:55, Michał Mirosław wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 30, 2023 at 10:30:56PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 29/07/2023 18:08, Svyatoslav Ryhel wrote:
>>> From: Michał Mirosław <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.

Shared interrupt might be triggered easily by other device between
remove() and irq release function (devm_free_irq() or whatever it is
called).

Best regards,
Krzysztof