Re: [PATCH 1/2] pwm: make it possible to apply pwm changes in atomic context

From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
To: "Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Cc: Sean Young <sean@mess.org>, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>,
	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>,
	Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@pengutronix.de>,
	Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com>,
	NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@nxp.com>,
	Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@mleia.com>,
	Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>,
	Daire McNamara <daire.mcnamara@microchip.com>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
	Fabrice Gasnier <fabrice.gasnier@foss.st.com>,
	Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com>,
	Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com>,
	linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org,
	Ivaylo Dimitrov <ivo.g.dimitrov.75@gmail.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] pwm: make it possible to apply pwm changes in atomic context
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2023 12:27:51 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZR_hJ05h5O6SpM_D@orome.fritz.box> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231004095920.ne7yrrthow6tnuvg@pengutronix.de>

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1823 bytes --]

On Wed, Oct 04, 2023 at 11:59:20AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello Sean,
> 
> On Sun, Oct 01, 2023 at 11:40:29AM +0100, Sean Young wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/core.c b/drivers/pwm/core.c
> > index dc66e3405bf5..d9679ae5b2be 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pwm/core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pwm/core.c
> > @@ -505,7 +505,7 @@ int pwm_apply_state(struct pwm_device *pwm, const struct pwm_state *state)
> >  	 * is a bad idea. So make it explicit that calling this function might
> >  	 * sleep.
> >  	 */
> > -	might_sleep();
> > +	might_sleep_if(pwm_can_sleep(pwm));
> >  
> >  	if (!pwm || !state || !state->period ||
> >  	    state->duty_cycle > state->period)
> 
> I'd like to have a mechanism to catch drivers that missed to set
> .can_sleep. The best idea I currently have for that is to disable
> preemption if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PWM_DEBUG) && !pwm_can_sleep(pwm) while
> .apply() is running.
> 
> > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-fsl-ftm.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-fsl-ftm.c
> > index b7c6045c5d08..b8b9392844e9 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-fsl-ftm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-fsl-ftm.c
> > @@ -405,6 +405,7 @@ static int fsl_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >  
> >  	fpc->soc = of_device_get_match_data(&pdev->dev);
> >  	fpc->chip.dev = &pdev->dev;
> > +	fpc->chip.can_sleep = true;
> 
> As .apply() being callable in non-sleepable context only depends on
> .apply() I think a better place for this property is in struct pwm_ops.

What about drivers for devices that can be either sleeping or not? There
are things like regmap which can abstract those differences away, so you
could have a driver that works on both types of devices, so setting this
in ops wouldn't be correct all the time. I think can_sleep needs to be
per-chip rather than per-driver.

Thierry

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel