Linux GPIO subsystem development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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


             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