[PATCH v2 0/2] gpiolib: protect the list of GPIO devices with a mutex

[PATCH v2 0/2] gpiolib: protect the list of GPIO devices with a mutex

[Bartosz Golaszewski]

From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>

I figured that - since the descriptor locking is going to take some more
time - we should at least start the conversion and protect the GPIO
device list with a mutex.

Patch 2/2 here is actually a v2 of the original submission.

v1 -> v2:
- add a patch renaming two functions
- protect the list in gpio_device_find() too
- coding style tweaks

Bartosz Golaszewski (2):
  gpiolib: rename static functions that are called with the lock taken
  gpiolib: use a mutex to protect the list of GPIO devices

 drivers/gpio/gpiolib-sysfs.c |  26 +-----
 drivers/gpio/gpiolib-sysfs.h |   6 ++
 drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c       | 166 ++++++++++++++++++-----------------
 drivers/gpio/gpiolib.h       |   1 -
 4 files changed, 94 insertions(+), 105 deletions(-)

-- 
2.40.1

[PATCH v2 1/2] gpiolib: rename static functions that are called with the lock taken

[Bartosz Golaszewski]

From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>

Rename two functions that read or modify the global GPIO device list but
don't take the lock themselves (and need to be called with it already
acquired). Use the _unlocked() suffix which seems to be used quite
consistently across the kernel despite there also existing the _locked()
suffix for the same purpose.

Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>
---
 drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c | 8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
index 4e190be75dc2..779f8b21bf05 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
@@ -290,7 +290,7 @@ struct gpio_chip *gpio_device_get_chip(struct gpio_device *gdev)
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(gpio_device_get_chip);
 
 /* dynamic allocation of GPIOs, e.g. on a hotplugged device */
-static int gpiochip_find_base(int ngpio)
+static int gpiochip_find_base_unlocked(int ngpio)
 {
 	struct gpio_device *gdev;
 	int base = GPIO_DYNAMIC_BASE;
@@ -363,7 +363,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(gpiod_get_direction);
  * Return -EBUSY if the new chip overlaps with some other chip's integer
  * space.
  */
-static int gpiodev_add_to_list(struct gpio_device *gdev)
+static int gpiodev_add_to_list_unlocked(struct gpio_device *gdev)
 {
 	struct gpio_device *prev, *next;
 
@@ -907,7 +907,7 @@ int gpiochip_add_data_with_key(struct gpio_chip *gc, void *data,
 	 */
 	base = gc->base;
 	if (base < 0) {
-		base = gpiochip_find_base(gc->ngpio);
+		base = gpiochip_find_base_unlocked(gc->ngpio);
 		if (base < 0) {
 			spin_unlock_irqrestore(&gpio_lock, flags);
 			ret = base;
@@ -927,7 +927,7 @@ int gpiochip_add_data_with_key(struct gpio_chip *gc, void *data,
 	}
 	gdev->base = base;
 
-	ret = gpiodev_add_to_list(gdev);
+	ret = gpiodev_add_to_list_unlocked(gdev);
 	if (ret) {
 		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&gpio_lock, flags);
 		chip_err(gc, "GPIO integer space overlap, cannot add chip\n");
-- 
2.40.1

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] gpiolib: rename static functions that are called with the lock taken

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 11:20:19AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>
> 
> Rename two functions that read or modify the global GPIO device list but
> don't take the lock themselves (and need to be called with it already
> acquired). Use the _unlocked() suffix which seems to be used quite
> consistently across the kernel despite there also existing the _locked()
> suffix for the same purpose.

Okay,
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

[PATCH v2 2/2] gpiolib: use a mutex to protect the list of GPIO devices

[Bartosz Golaszewski]

From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>

The global list of GPIO devices is never modified or accessed from
atomic context so it's fine to protect it using a mutex. Add a new
global lock dedicated to the gpio_devices list and use it whenever
accessing or modifying it.

While at it: fold the sysfs registering of existing devices into
gpiolib.c and make gpio_devices static within its compilation unit.

Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>
---
 drivers/gpio/gpiolib-sysfs.c |  26 +-----
 drivers/gpio/gpiolib-sysfs.h |   6 ++
 drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c       | 162 ++++++++++++++++++-----------------
 drivers/gpio/gpiolib.h       |   1 -
 4 files changed, 92 insertions(+), 103 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-sysfs.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-sysfs.c
index 6f309a3b2d9a..c538568604e8 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-sysfs.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-sysfs.c
@@ -790,9 +790,7 @@ void gpiochip_sysfs_unregister(struct gpio_device *gdev)
 
 static int __init gpiolib_sysfs_init(void)
 {
-	int		status;
-	unsigned long	flags;
-	struct gpio_device *gdev;
+	int status;
 
 	status = class_register(&gpio_class);
 	if (status < 0)
@@ -804,26 +802,6 @@ static int __init gpiolib_sysfs_init(void)
 	 * We run before arch_initcall() so chip->dev nodes can have
 	 * registered, and so arch_initcall() can always gpiod_export().
 	 */
-	spin_lock_irqsave(&gpio_lock, flags);
-	list_for_each_entry(gdev, &gpio_devices, list) {
-		if (gdev->mockdev)
-			continue;
-
-		/*
-		 * TODO we yield gpio_lock here because
-		 * gpiochip_sysfs_register() acquires a mutex. This is unsafe
-		 * and needs to be fixed.
-		 *
-		 * Also it would be nice to use gpio_device_find() here so we
-		 * can keep gpio_chips local to gpiolib.c, but the yield of
-		 * gpio_lock prevents us from doing this.
-		 */
-		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&gpio_lock, flags);
-		status = gpiochip_sysfs_register(gdev);
-		spin_lock_irqsave(&gpio_lock, flags);
-	}
-	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&gpio_lock, flags);
-
-	return status;
+	return gpiochip_sysfs_register_all();
 }
 postcore_initcall(gpiolib_sysfs_init);
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-sysfs.h b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-sysfs.h
index b794b396d6a5..ab157cec0b4b 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-sysfs.h
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-sysfs.h
@@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ struct gpio_device;
 #ifdef CONFIG_GPIO_SYSFS
 
 int gpiochip_sysfs_register(struct gpio_device *gdev);
+int gpiochip_sysfs_register_all(void);
 void gpiochip_sysfs_unregister(struct gpio_device *gdev);
 
 #else
@@ -17,6 +18,11 @@ static inline int gpiochip_sysfs_register(struct gpio_device *gdev)
 	return 0;
 }
 
+static inline int gpiochip_sysfs_register_all(void)
+{
+	return 0;
+}
+
 static inline void gpiochip_sysfs_unregister(struct gpio_device *gdev)
 {
 }
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
index 779f8b21bf05..9aaf1d11fdd9 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
@@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
 
 #include <linux/acpi.h>
 #include <linux/bitmap.h>
+#include <linux/cleanup.h>
 #include <linux/compat.h>
 #include <linux/debugfs.h>
 #include <linux/device.h>
@@ -15,6 +16,7 @@
 #include <linux/kernel.h>
 #include <linux/list.h>
 #include <linux/module.h>
+#include <linux/mutex.h>
 #include <linux/of.h>
 #include <linux/pinctrl/consumer.h>
 #include <linux/seq_file.h>
@@ -94,7 +96,9 @@ DEFINE_SPINLOCK(gpio_lock);
 
 static DEFINE_MUTEX(gpio_lookup_lock);
 static LIST_HEAD(gpio_lookup_list);
-LIST_HEAD(gpio_devices);
+
+static LIST_HEAD(gpio_devices);
+static DEFINE_MUTEX(gpio_devices_lock);
 
 static DEFINE_MUTEX(gpio_machine_hogs_mutex);
 static LIST_HEAD(gpio_machine_hogs);
@@ -126,20 +130,15 @@ static inline void desc_set_label(struct gpio_desc *d, const char *label)
 struct gpio_desc *gpio_to_desc(unsigned gpio)
 {
 	struct gpio_device *gdev;
-	unsigned long flags;
 
-	spin_lock_irqsave(&gpio_lock, flags);
-
-	list_for_each_entry(gdev, &gpio_devices, list) {
-		if (gdev->base <= gpio &&
-		    gdev->base + gdev->ngpio > gpio) {
-			spin_unlock_irqrestore(&gpio_lock, flags);
-			return &gdev->descs[gpio - gdev->base];
+	scoped_guard(mutex, &gpio_devices_lock) {
+		list_for_each_entry(gdev, &gpio_devices, list) {
+			if (gdev->base <= gpio &&
+			    gdev->base + gdev->ngpio > gpio)
+				return &gdev->descs[gpio - gdev->base];
 		}
 	}
 
-	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&gpio_lock, flags);
-
 	if (!gpio_is_valid(gpio))
 		pr_warn("invalid GPIO %d\n", gpio);
 
@@ -412,26 +411,21 @@ static int gpiodev_add_to_list_unlocked(struct gpio_device *gdev)
 static struct gpio_desc *gpio_name_to_desc(const char * const name)
 {
 	struct gpio_device *gdev;
-	unsigned long flags;
 
 	if (!name)
 		return NULL;
 
-	spin_lock_irqsave(&gpio_lock, flags);
+	guard(mutex)(&gpio_devices_lock);
 
 	list_for_each_entry(gdev, &gpio_devices, list) {
 		struct gpio_desc *desc;
 
 		for_each_gpio_desc(gdev->chip, desc) {
-			if (desc->name && !strcmp(desc->name, name)) {
-				spin_unlock_irqrestore(&gpio_lock, flags);
+			if (desc->name && !strcmp(desc->name, name))
 				return desc;
-			}
 		}
 	}
 
-	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&gpio_lock, flags);
-
 	return NULL;
 }
 
@@ -669,11 +663,9 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(gpiochip_line_is_valid);
 static void gpiodev_release(struct device *dev)
 {
 	struct gpio_device *gdev = to_gpio_device(dev);
-	unsigned long flags;
 
-	spin_lock_irqsave(&gpio_lock, flags);
-	list_del(&gdev->list);
-	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&gpio_lock, flags);
+	scoped_guard(mutex, &gpio_devices_lock)
+		list_del(&gdev->list);
 
 	ida_free(&gpio_ida, gdev->id);
 	kfree_const(gdev->label);
@@ -726,6 +718,27 @@ static int gpiochip_setup_dev(struct gpio_device *gdev)
 	return ret;
 }
 
+#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_GPIO_SYSFS)
+int gpiochip_sysfs_register_all(void)
+{
+	struct gpio_device *gdev;
+	int ret;
+
+	guard(mutex)(&gpio_devices_lock);
+
+	list_for_each_entry(gdev, &gpio_devices, list) {
+		if (gdev->mockdev)
+			continue;
+
+		ret = gpiochip_sysfs_register(gdev);
+		if (ret)
+			return ret;
+	}
+
+	return 0;
+}
+#endif /* CONFIG_GPIO_SYSFS */
+
 static void gpiochip_machine_hog(struct gpio_chip *gc, struct gpiod_hog *hog)
 {
 	struct gpio_desc *desc;
@@ -831,7 +844,6 @@ int gpiochip_add_data_with_key(struct gpio_chip *gc, void *data,
 			       struct lock_class_key *request_key)
 {
 	struct gpio_device *gdev;
-	unsigned long flags;
 	unsigned int i;
 	int base = 0;
 	int ret = 0;
@@ -896,48 +908,45 @@ int gpiochip_add_data_with_key(struct gpio_chip *gc, void *data,
 
 	gdev->ngpio = gc->ngpio;
 
-	spin_lock_irqsave(&gpio_lock, flags);
+	scoped_guard(mutex, &gpio_devices_lock) {
+		/*
+		 * TODO: this allocates a Linux GPIO number base in the global
+		 * GPIO numberspace for this chip. In the long run we want to
+		 * get *rid* of this numberspace and use only descriptors, but
+		 * it may be a pipe dream. It will not happen before we get rid
+		 * of the sysfs interface anyways.
+		 */
+		base = gc->base;
 
-	/*
-	 * TODO: this allocates a Linux GPIO number base in the global
-	 * GPIO numberspace for this chip. In the long run we want to
-	 * get *rid* of this numberspace and use only descriptors, but
-	 * it may be a pipe dream. It will not happen before we get rid
-	 * of the sysfs interface anyways.
-	 */
-	base = gc->base;
-	if (base < 0) {
-		base = gpiochip_find_base_unlocked(gc->ngpio);
 		if (base < 0) {
-			spin_unlock_irqrestore(&gpio_lock, flags);
-			ret = base;
-			base = 0;
+			base = gpiochip_find_base_unlocked(gc->ngpio);
+			if (base < 0) {
+				ret = base;
+				base = 0;
+				goto err_free_label;
+			}
+			/*
+			 * TODO: it should not be necessary to reflect the assigned
+			 * base outside of the GPIO subsystem. Go over drivers and
+			 * see if anyone makes use of this, else drop this and assign
+			 * a poison instead.
+			 */
+			gc->base = base;
+		} else {
+			dev_warn(&gdev->dev,
+				 "Static allocation of GPIO base is deprecated, use dynamic allocation.\n");
+		}
+		gdev->base = base;
+
+		ret = gpiodev_add_to_list_unlocked(gdev);
+		if (ret) {
+			chip_err(gc, "GPIO integer space overlap, cannot add chip\n");
 			goto err_free_label;
 		}
-		/*
-		 * TODO: it should not be necessary to reflect the assigned
-		 * base outside of the GPIO subsystem. Go over drivers and
-		 * see if anyone makes use of this, else drop this and assign
-		 * a poison instead.
-		 */
-		gc->base = base;
-	} else {
-		dev_warn(&gdev->dev,
-			 "Static allocation of GPIO base is deprecated, use dynamic allocation.\n");
+
+		for (i = 0; i < gc->ngpio; i++)
+			gdev->descs[i].gdev = gdev;
 	}
-	gdev->base = base;
-
-	ret = gpiodev_add_to_list_unlocked(gdev);
-	if (ret) {
-		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&gpio_lock, flags);
-		chip_err(gc, "GPIO integer space overlap, cannot add chip\n");
-		goto err_free_label;
-	}
-
-	for (i = 0; i < gc->ngpio; i++)
-		gdev->descs[i].gdev = gdev;
-
-	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&gpio_lock, flags);
 
 	BLOCKING_INIT_NOTIFIER_HEAD(&gdev->line_state_notifier);
 	BLOCKING_INIT_NOTIFIER_HEAD(&gdev->device_notifier);
@@ -1029,9 +1038,8 @@ int gpiochip_add_data_with_key(struct gpio_chip *gc, void *data,
 		goto err_print_message;
 	}
 err_remove_from_list:
-	spin_lock_irqsave(&gpio_lock, flags);
-	list_del(&gdev->list);
-	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&gpio_lock, flags);
+	scoped_guard(mutex, &gpio_devices_lock)
+		list_del(&gdev->list);
 err_free_label:
 	kfree_const(gdev->label);
 err_free_descs:
@@ -1140,7 +1148,7 @@ struct gpio_device *gpio_device_find(void *data,
 	 */
 	might_sleep();
 
-	guard(spinlock_irqsave)(&gpio_lock);
+	guard(mutex)(&gpio_devices_lock);
 
 	list_for_each_entry(gdev, &gpio_devices, list) {
 		if (gdev->chip && match(gdev->chip, data))
@@ -4748,35 +4756,33 @@ static void gpiolib_dbg_show(struct seq_file *s, struct gpio_device *gdev)
 
 static void *gpiolib_seq_start(struct seq_file *s, loff_t *pos)
 {
-	unsigned long flags;
 	struct gpio_device *gdev = NULL;
 	loff_t index = *pos;
 
 	s->private = "";
 
-	spin_lock_irqsave(&gpio_lock, flags);
-	list_for_each_entry(gdev, &gpio_devices, list)
-		if (index-- == 0) {
-			spin_unlock_irqrestore(&gpio_lock, flags);
+	guard(mutex)(&gpio_devices_lock);
+
+	list_for_each_entry(gdev, &gpio_devices, list) {
+		if (index-- == 0)
 			return gdev;
-		}
-	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&gpio_lock, flags);
+	}
 
 	return NULL;
 }
 
 static void *gpiolib_seq_next(struct seq_file *s, void *v, loff_t *pos)
 {
-	unsigned long flags;
 	struct gpio_device *gdev = v;
 	void *ret = NULL;
 
-	spin_lock_irqsave(&gpio_lock, flags);
-	if (list_is_last(&gdev->list, &gpio_devices))
-		ret = NULL;
-	else
-		ret = list_first_entry(&gdev->list, struct gpio_device, list);
-	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&gpio_lock, flags);
+	scoped_guard(mutex, &gpio_devices_lock) {
+		if (list_is_last(&gdev->list, &gpio_devices))
+			ret = NULL;
+		else
+			ret = list_first_entry(&gdev->list, struct gpio_device,
+					       list);
+	}
 
 	s->private = "\n";
 	++*pos;
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.h b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.h
index 3ccacf3c1288..9278796db079 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.h
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.h
@@ -135,7 +135,6 @@ int gpiod_set_array_value_complex(bool raw, bool can_sleep,
 int gpiod_set_transitory(struct gpio_desc *desc, bool transitory);
 
 extern spinlock_t gpio_lock;
-extern struct list_head gpio_devices;
 
 void gpiod_line_state_notify(struct gpio_desc *desc, unsigned long action);
 
-- 
2.40.1

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] gpiolib: use a mutex to protect the list of GPIO devices

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 11:20:20AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>
> 
> The global list of GPIO devices is never modified or accessed from
> atomic context so it's fine to protect it using a mutex. Add a new
> global lock dedicated to the gpio_devices list and use it whenever
> accessing or modifying it.

...

> While at it: fold the sysfs registering of existing devices into
> gpiolib.c and make gpio_devices static within its compilation unit.

TBH I do not like injecting sysfs (legacy!) code into gpiolib.
It makes things at very least confusing.

That _ugly_ ifdeffery and sysfs in the function name are not okay.

If you want do that, please create a separate change and explain the rationale
behind with answering to the Q "Why do we need all that and why is it better
than any alternatives?".

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] gpiolib: use a mutex to protect the list of GPIO devices

[Bartosz Golaszewski]

On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 2:53 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 11:20:20AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>
> >
> > The global list of GPIO devices is never modified or accessed from
> > atomic context so it's fine to protect it using a mutex. Add a new
> > global lock dedicated to the gpio_devices list and use it whenever
> > accessing or modifying it.
>
> ...
>
> > While at it: fold the sysfs registering of existing devices into
> > gpiolib.c and make gpio_devices static within its compilation unit.
>
> TBH I do not like injecting sysfs (legacy!) code into gpiolib.
> It makes things at very least confusing.
>
> That _ugly_ ifdeffery and sysfs in the function name are not okay.
>
> If you want do that, please create a separate change and explain the rationale
> behind with answering to the Q "Why do we need all that and why is it better
> than any alternatives?".
>

I can move it back to gpiolib-sysfs.c but this way we'll have to keep
the GPIO device mutex public in gpiolib.h.

Bart

> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
>
>

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] gpiolib: use a mutex to protect the list of GPIO devices

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 02:59:28PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 2:53 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 11:20:20AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>
> > >
> > > The global list of GPIO devices is never modified or accessed from
> > > atomic context so it's fine to protect it using a mutex. Add a new
> > > global lock dedicated to the gpio_devices list and use it whenever
> > > accessing or modifying it.

...

> > > While at it: fold the sysfs registering of existing devices into
> > > gpiolib.c and make gpio_devices static within its compilation unit.
> >
> > TBH I do not like injecting sysfs (legacy!) code into gpiolib.
> > It makes things at very least confusing.
> >
> > That _ugly_ ifdeffery and sysfs in the function name are not okay.
> >
> > If you want do that, please create a separate change and explain the rationale
> > behind with answering to the Q "Why do we need all that and why is it better
> > than any alternatives?".
> 
> I can move it back to gpiolib-sysfs.c but this way we'll have to keep
> the GPIO device mutex public in gpiolib.h.

And I'm fine with that. Again, we can discuss this in a separate change that
will do that (make that mutex local with the explanation why).

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] gpiolib: use a mutex to protect the list of GPIO devices

[Bartosz Golaszewski]

On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 3:04 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 02:59:28PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 2:53 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 11:20:20AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>
> > > >
> > > > The global list of GPIO devices is never modified or accessed from
> > > > atomic context so it's fine to protect it using a mutex. Add a new
> > > > global lock dedicated to the gpio_devices list and use it whenever
> > > > accessing or modifying it.
>
> ...
>
> > > > While at it: fold the sysfs registering of existing devices into
> > > > gpiolib.c and make gpio_devices static within its compilation unit.
> > >
> > > TBH I do not like injecting sysfs (legacy!) code into gpiolib.
> > > It makes things at very least confusing.
> > >
> > > That _ugly_ ifdeffery and sysfs in the function name are not okay.
> > >
> > > If you want do that, please create a separate change and explain the rationale
> > > behind with answering to the Q "Why do we need all that and why is it better
> > > than any alternatives?".
> >
> > I can move it back to gpiolib-sysfs.c but this way we'll have to keep
> > the GPIO device mutex public in gpiolib.h.
>
> And I'm fine with that. Again, we can discuss this in a separate change that
> will do that (make that mutex local with the explanation why).
>

No, I won't be sending one. I'll send another iteration of this with
sysfs stuff contained to gpiolib-sysfs.c.

Bart

> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
>
>

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] gpiolib: use a mutex to protect the list of GPIO devices

[Bartosz Golaszewski]

On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 11:20 AM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl> wrote:
>
> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>
>
> The global list of GPIO devices is never modified or accessed from
> atomic context so it's fine to protect it using a mutex. Add a new
> global lock dedicated to the gpio_devices list and use it whenever
> accessing or modifying it.
>
> While at it: fold the sysfs registering of existing devices into
> gpiolib.c and make gpio_devices static within its compilation unit.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>

If there are no objections, I'll apply it tomorrow.

Bart