[v2] pwm: pca9685: fix pwm/gpio inter-operation
diff mbox series

Message ID 20190604181345.9107-1-TheSven73@gmail.com
State New
Headers show
Series
  • [v2] pwm: pca9685: fix pwm/gpio inter-operation
Related show

Commit Message

Sven Van Asbroeck June 4, 2019, 6:13 p.m. UTC
This driver allows pwms to be requested as gpios via gpiolib.
Obviously, it should not be allowed to request a gpio when its
corresponding pwm is already requested (and vice versa).
So it requires some exclusion code.

Given that the pwm and gpio cores are not synchronized with
respect to each other, this exclusion code will also require
proper synchronization.

Such a mechanism was in place, but was inadvertently removed
by Uwe's clean-up patch.

Upon revisiting the synchronization mechanism, we found that
theoretically, it could allow two threads to successfully
request conflicting pwms / gpios.

Replace with a bitmap which tracks pwm in-use, plus a mutex.
As long as pwm and gpio's respective request/free functions
modify the in-use bitmap while holding the mutex, proper
synchronization will be guaranteed.

Reported-by: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@huawei.com>
Fixes: e926b12c611c ("pwm: Clear chip_data in pwm_put()")
Cc: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Uwe Kleine-K├Ânig <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Cc: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@huawei.com>
Link: https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/5/31/963
Signed-off-by: Sven Van Asbroeck <TheSven73@gmail.com>
---

WARNING:
	Untested on a real system, I do not have any test h/w.
	This patch should get someone's Tested-by tag.

v1 -> v2:
	applied suggestions from Mika Westerberg:
		rename pca9685_pwm_test_set_inuse -> pca9685_pwm_test_and_set_inuse
		use test_set_inuse and clear_inuse functions for both pwm and gpio
	improve exclusion policy so "all LEDs" channel cannot conflict with the
		other channels, for pwm and gpio alike

 drivers/pwm/pwm-pca9685.c | 89 +++++++++++++++++++++------------------
 1 file changed, 48 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)

Comments

mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com June 5, 2019, 12:53 p.m. UTC | #1
On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 02:13:45PM -0400, Sven Van Asbroeck wrote:
> This driver allows pwms to be requested as gpios via gpiolib.
> Obviously, it should not be allowed to request a gpio when its
> corresponding pwm is already requested (and vice versa).
> So it requires some exclusion code.
> 
> Given that the pwm and gpio cores are not synchronized with
> respect to each other, this exclusion code will also require
> proper synchronization.
> 
> Such a mechanism was in place, but was inadvertently removed
> by Uwe's clean-up patch.
> 
> Upon revisiting the synchronization mechanism, we found that
> theoretically, it could allow two threads to successfully
> request conflicting pwms / gpios.
> 
> Replace with a bitmap which tracks pwm in-use, plus a mutex.
> As long as pwm and gpio's respective request/free functions
> modify the in-use bitmap while holding the mutex, proper
> synchronization will be guaranteed.
> 
> Reported-by: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@huawei.com>
> Fixes: e926b12c611c ("pwm: Clear chip_data in pwm_put()")
> Cc: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>

Reviewed-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
Sven Van Asbroeck June 5, 2019, 1:10 p.m. UTC | #2
On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 8:54 AM Mika Westerberg
<mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> Reviewed-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>

Thank you. The next step for this patch is to test it on actual hardware
(which I no longer have).

Is there anyone in the thread willing to volunteer?

Patch
diff mbox series

diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-pca9685.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-pca9685.c
index 567f5e2771c4..259fd58812ae 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-pca9685.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-pca9685.c
@@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ 
 #include <linux/slab.h>
 #include <linux/delay.h>
 #include <linux/pm_runtime.h>
+#include <linux/bitmap.h>
 
 /*
  * Because the PCA9685 has only one prescaler per chip, changing the period of
@@ -85,6 +86,7 @@  struct pca9685 {
 #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_GPIOLIB)
 	struct mutex lock;
 	struct gpio_chip gpio;
+	DECLARE_BITMAP(pwms_inuse, PCA9685_MAXCHAN + 1);
 #endif
 };
 
@@ -94,51 +96,51 @@  static inline struct pca9685 *to_pca(struct pwm_chip *chip)
 }
 
 #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_GPIOLIB)
-static int pca9685_pwm_gpio_request(struct gpio_chip *gpio, unsigned int offset)
+static bool pca9685_pwm_test_and_set_inuse(struct pca9685 *pca, int pwm_idx)
 {
-	struct pca9685 *pca = gpiochip_get_data(gpio);
-	struct pwm_device *pwm;
+	bool is_inuse;
 
 	mutex_lock(&pca->lock);
-
-	pwm = &pca->chip.pwms[offset];
-
-	if (pwm->flags & (PWMF_REQUESTED | PWMF_EXPORTED)) {
-		mutex_unlock(&pca->lock);
-		return -EBUSY;
+	if (pwm_idx >= PCA9685_MAXCHAN) {
+		/*
+		 * "all LEDs" channel:
+		 * pretend already in use if any of the PWMs are requested
+		 */
+		if (!bitmap_empty(pca->pwms_inuse, PCA9685_MAXCHAN)) {
+			is_inuse = true;
+			goto out;
+		}
+	} else {
+		/*
+		 * regular channel:
+		 * pretend already in use if the "all LEDs" channel is requested
+		 */
+		if (test_bit(PCA9685_MAXCHAN, pca->pwms_inuse)) {
+			is_inuse = true;
+			goto out;
+		}
 	}
-
-	pwm_set_chip_data(pwm, (void *)1);
-
+	is_inuse = test_and_set_bit(pwm_idx, pca->pwms_inuse);
+out:
 	mutex_unlock(&pca->lock);
-	pm_runtime_get_sync(pca->chip.dev);
-	return 0;
+	return is_inuse;
 }
 
-static bool pca9685_pwm_is_gpio(struct pca9685 *pca, struct pwm_device *pwm)
+static void pca9685_pwm_clear_inuse(struct pca9685 *pca, int pwm_idx)
 {
-	bool is_gpio = false;
-
 	mutex_lock(&pca->lock);
+	clear_bit(pwm_idx, pca->pwms_inuse);
+	mutex_unlock(&pca->lock);
+}
 
-	if (pwm->hwpwm >= PCA9685_MAXCHAN) {
-		unsigned int i;
-
-		/*
-		 * Check if any of the GPIOs are requested and in that case
-		 * prevent using the "all LEDs" channel.
-		 */
-		for (i = 0; i < pca->gpio.ngpio; i++)
-			if (gpiochip_is_requested(&pca->gpio, i)) {
-				is_gpio = true;
-				break;
-			}
-	} else if (pwm_get_chip_data(pwm)) {
-		is_gpio = true;
-	}
+static int pca9685_pwm_gpio_request(struct gpio_chip *gpio, unsigned int offset)
+{
+	struct pca9685 *pca = gpiochip_get_data(gpio);
 
-	mutex_unlock(&pca->lock);
-	return is_gpio;
+	if (pca9685_pwm_test_and_set_inuse(pca, offset))
+		return -EBUSY;
+	pm_runtime_get_sync(pca->chip.dev);
+	return 0;
 }
 
 static int pca9685_pwm_gpio_get(struct gpio_chip *gpio, unsigned int offset)
@@ -170,13 +172,10 @@  static void pca9685_pwm_gpio_set(struct gpio_chip *gpio, unsigned int offset,
 static void pca9685_pwm_gpio_free(struct gpio_chip *gpio, unsigned int offset)
 {
 	struct pca9685 *pca = gpiochip_get_data(gpio);
-	struct pwm_device *pwm;
 
 	pca9685_pwm_gpio_set(gpio, offset, 0);
 	pm_runtime_put(pca->chip.dev);
-	mutex_lock(&pca->lock);
-	pwm = &pca->chip.pwms[offset];
-	mutex_unlock(&pca->lock);
+	pca9685_pwm_clear_inuse(pca, offset);
 }
 
 static int pca9685_pwm_gpio_get_direction(struct gpio_chip *chip,
@@ -228,12 +227,17 @@  static int pca9685_pwm_gpio_probe(struct pca9685 *pca)
 	return devm_gpiochip_add_data(dev, &pca->gpio, pca);
 }
 #else
-static inline bool pca9685_pwm_is_gpio(struct pca9685 *pca,
-				       struct pwm_device *pwm)
+static inline bool pca9685_pwm_test_and_set_inuse(struct pca9685 *pca,
+						  int pwm_idx)
 {
 	return false;
 }
 
+static inline void
+pca9685_pwm_clear_inuse(struct pca9685 *pca, int pwm_idx)
+{
+}
+
 static inline int pca9685_pwm_gpio_probe(struct pca9685 *pca)
 {
 	return 0;
@@ -417,7 +421,7 @@  static int pca9685_pwm_request(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
 {
 	struct pca9685 *pca = to_pca(chip);
 
-	if (pca9685_pwm_is_gpio(pca, pwm))
+	if (pca9685_pwm_test_and_set_inuse(pca, pwm->hwpwm))
 		return -EBUSY;
 	pm_runtime_get_sync(chip->dev);
 
@@ -426,8 +430,11 @@  static int pca9685_pwm_request(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
 
 static void pca9685_pwm_free(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
 {
+	struct pca9685 *pca = to_pca(chip);
+
 	pca9685_pwm_disable(chip, pwm);
 	pm_runtime_put(chip->dev);
+	pca9685_pwm_clear_inuse(pca, pwm->hwpwm);
 }
 
 static const struct pwm_ops pca9685_pwm_ops = {