public inbox for linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Wolfram Sang <wsa@kernel.org>
To: Daniel Mack <daniel@zonque.org>
Cc: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: core: fix lockdep warning for sparsely nested adapter chain
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2023 19:04:07 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZTqcB/JOZ8+GXq4b@shikoro> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231018094613.849007-1-daniel@zonque.org>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1805 bytes --]

Hi Daniel,

On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 11:46:13AM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote:
> When adapters are chained in a sparse manner (with intermediate MFD devices,

So, you have an MFD including an i2c-mux or something?

> for instance) the code currently fails to use the correct subclass for
> the adapter's bus_lock which leads to false-positive lockdep warnings.
> 
> Fix this by walking the entire pedigree of the device and count all
> adapters along the way instead of just checking the immediate parent.

Sounds reasonable to me.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Mack <daniel@zonque.org>
> ---
> This hit me when during the development of a driver stack that isn't
> submitted mainline yet. This patch could however be discussed
> independently I think.

Yes, it can :)

> 
>  drivers/i2c/i2c-core-base.c | 6 ++++--
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-base.c b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-base.c
> index 60746652fd52..4692a1e5ea0a 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-base.c
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-base.c
> @@ -1189,9 +1189,11 @@ static void i2c_adapter_dev_release(struct device *dev)
>  unsigned int i2c_adapter_depth(struct i2c_adapter *adapter)
>  {
>  	unsigned int depth = 0;
> +	struct device *parent;
>  
> -	while ((adapter = i2c_parent_is_i2c_adapter(adapter)))

I never noticed we overwrite the 'adapter' function argument. Much
better with your version and the local variable.

> -		depth++;
> +	for (parent = adapter->dev.parent; parent; parent = parent->parent)
> +		if (parent->type == &i2c_adapter_type)
> +			depth++;

I am not sure myself. Is the code explaining itself or should we add a
short comment why we use a for-loop? I tend to leave it as is.

Thanks for this patch!

   Wolfram


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2023-10-26 17:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-10-18  9:46 [PATCH] i2c: core: fix lockdep warning for sparsely nested adapter chain Daniel Mack
2023-10-26 17:04 ` Wolfram Sang [this message]
2023-10-28 12:47 ` Wolfram Sang

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=ZTqcB/JOZ8+GXq4b@shikoro \
    --to=wsa@kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@zonque.org \
    --cc=linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org \
    /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