Re: [PATCH 3/3] mtd: mtdconcat: add suspend lock handling

From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@collabora.com>
To: Sean Nyekjaer <sean@geanix.com>
Cc: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>,
	Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
	Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com>,
	Boris Brezillon <bbrezillon@kernel.org>,
	linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mtd: mtdconcat: add suspend lock handling
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2021 15:27:03 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211011152703.0086d990@collabora.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211011151501.48cc9289@collabora.com>

On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 15:15:01 +0200
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@collabora.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 13:52:53 +0200
> Sean Nyekjaer <sean@geanix.com> wrote:
> 
> > Use new suspend lock handling for this special case for concatenated
> > MTD devices.
> > 
> > Fixes: 013e6292aaf5 ("mtd: rawnand: Simplify the locking")
> > Signed-off-by: Sean Nyekjaer <sean@geanix.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/mtd/mtdconcat.c | 11 +++++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/mtdconcat.c b/drivers/mtd/mtdconcat.c
> > index f685a581df48..c497c851481f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mtd/mtdconcat.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mtd/mtdconcat.c
> > @@ -561,25 +561,32 @@ static void concat_sync(struct mtd_info *mtd)
> >  
> >  static int concat_suspend(struct mtd_info *mtd)
> >  {
> > +	struct mtd_info *master = mtd_get_master(mtd);
> >  	struct mtd_concat *concat = CONCAT(mtd);
> >  	int i, rc = 0;
> >  
> >  	for (i = 0; i < concat->num_subdev; i++) {
> >  		struct mtd_info *subdev = concat->subdev[i];
> > -		if ((rc = mtd_suspend(subdev)) < 0)
> > +
> > +		down_write(&master->master.suspend_lock);
> > +		if ((rc = __mtd_suspend(subdev)) < 0)
> >  			return rc;
> > +		up_write(&master->master.suspend_lock);
> >  	}
> >  	return rc;
> >  }
> >  
> >  static void concat_resume(struct mtd_info *mtd)
> >  {
> > +	struct mtd_info *master = mtd_get_master(mtd);
> >  	struct mtd_concat *concat = CONCAT(mtd);
> >  	int i;
> >  
> >  	for (i = 0; i < concat->num_subdev; i++) {
> >  		struct mtd_info *subdev = concat->subdev[i];
> > -		mtd_resume(subdev);
> > +		down_write(&master->master.suspend_lock);
> > +		__mtd_resume(subdev);
> > +		up_write(&master->master.suspend_lock);
> >  	}
> >  }
> >    
> 
> Why do we need to implement the _suspend/_resume() hooks here? The
> underlying MTD devices should be suspended at some point (when the
> class ->suspend() method is called on those device), and there's
> nothing mtdconcat-specific to do here. Looks like implementing this
> suspend-all-subdevs loop results in calling mtd->_suspend()/_resume()
> twice, which is useless. The only issue I see is if the subdevices
> haven't been registered to the device model, but that happens, I
> believe we have bigger issues (those devices won't be suspended when
> mtdconcat is not used).

Uh, just had a look at mtd_concat_create() callers, and they indeed
don't register the subdevices, so I guess the suspend-all-subdevs loop
is needed. I really thought mtdconcat was something more generic
aggregating already registered devices...

______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/