From: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
Genes Lists <lists@sapience.com>
Cc: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Subject: [PATCH] gpiolib: don't check the retval of get_direction() when registering a chip
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2025 18:56:31 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250311175631.83779-1-brgl@bgdev.pl> (raw)
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>
During chip registration we should neither check the return value of
gc->get_direction() nor hold the SRCU lock when calling it. The former
is because pin controllers may have pins set to alternate functions and
return errors from their get_direction() callbacks. That's alright - we
should default to the safe INPUT state and not bail-out. The latter is
not needed because we haven't registered the chip yet so there's nothing
to protect against dynamic removal. In fact: we currently hit a lockdep
splat. Revert to calling the gc->get_direction() callback directly and
*not* checking its value.
Fixes: 9d846b1aebbe ("gpiolib: check the return value of gpio_chip::get_direction()")
Reported-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/81f890fc-6688-42f0-9756-567efc8bb97a@samsung.com/
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Tested-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250226-retval-fixes-v2-1-c8dc57182441@linaro.org
Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>
---
This commit is in linux-next as 9becde08f1bc ("gpiolib: don't use
gpiochip_get_direction() when registering a chip") and was applied as
a fix to commits e623c4303ed1 ("gpiolib: sanitize the return value of
gpio_chip::get_direction()") and 9d846b1aebbe ("gpiolib: check the return
value of gpio_chip::get_direction()"). Becuase the former is queued for
v6.15-rc1, this fix was never applied to v6.14 and sent upstream.
However, the warning it addresses is now queued for v6.14. I've rebased
this commit on top of v6.14-rc6 and would like to send it upstream. Once
merged, I'll pull v6.14-rc7 back into my for-next branch and fix the
conflicts.
drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c | 27 +++++++++++----------------
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
index 8741600af7ef..de708d081858 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
@@ -1056,24 +1056,19 @@ int gpiochip_add_data_with_key(struct gpio_chip *gc, void *data,
desc->gdev = gdev;
- if (gc->get_direction && gpiochip_line_is_valid(gc, desc_index)) {
- ret = gc->get_direction(gc, desc_index);
- if (ret < 0)
- /*
- * FIXME: Bail-out here once all GPIO drivers
- * are updated to not return errors in
- * situations that can be considered normal
- * operation.
- */
- dev_warn(&gdev->dev,
- "%s: get_direction failed: %d\n",
- __func__, ret);
-
- assign_bit(FLAG_IS_OUT, &desc->flags, !ret);
- } else {
+ /*
+ * We would typically want to check the return value of
+ * get_direction() here but we must not check the return value
+ * and bail-out as pin controllers can have pins configured to
+ * alternate functions and return -EINVAL. Also: there's no
+ * need to take the SRCU lock here.
+ */
+ if (gc->get_direction && gpiochip_line_is_valid(gc, desc_index))
+ assign_bit(FLAG_IS_OUT, &desc->flags,
+ !gc->get_direction(gc, desc_index));
+ else
assign_bit(FLAG_IS_OUT,
&desc->flags, !gc->direction_input);
- }
}
ret = of_gpiochip_add(gc);
--
2.45.2
next reply other threads:[~2025-03-11 17:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-03-11 17:56 Bartosz Golaszewski [this message]
2025-03-11 20:53 ` [PATCH] gpiolib: don't check the retval of get_direction() when registering a chip Genes Lists
2025-03-13 8:20 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20250311175631.83779-1-brgl@bgdev.pl \
--to=brgl@bgdev.pl \
--cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lists@sapience.com \
--cc=m.szyprowski@samsung.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox