From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
To: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>
Cc: "Andrew E. Mileski" <andrewm@isoar.ca>,
linux-mtd <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,
Scott Branden <sbranden@broadcom.com>
Subject: Re: Hang on reboot in nand_get_device()
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 22:36:13 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151109223613.1e83b256@bbrezillon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151109215508.7b14f5f3@bbrezillon>
Hi again,
Just want to add that this discussion shouldn't prevent your fix from
being applied. The main reason I'm arguing here is because I want to
understand the rationale behind the current handling of FL_PM_SUSPENDED
and FL_SHUTDOWN.
On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 21:55:08 +0100
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> > > index ceb68ca..812b8b1 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> > > @@ -830,6 +830,20 @@ nand_get_device(struct mtd_info *mtd, int new_state)
> > > retry:
> > > spin_lock(lock);
> > >
> > > + /* putting the NAND chip in shutdown state should always succeed. */
> > > + if (new_state == FL_SHUTDOWN) {
> > > + /*
> > > + * release the controller if the chip put in shutdown state
> > > + * is the current active device.
> > > + */
> > > + if (chip->controller->active == chip)
> > > + chip->controller->active = NULL;
> > > +
> > > + chip->state = new_state;
> > > + spin_unlock(lock);
> > > + return 0;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > /* Hardware controller shared among independent devices */
> > > if (!chip->controller->active)
> > > chip->controller->active = chip;
> > >
> >
> > This looks a lot more subtle and potentially wrong. What exactly is the
> > rationale here? It appears you're kind of unlocking the controller (any
> > other flash on the same controller can still go ahead) but at the same
> > time forcing no further users of this particular flash.
It's even worst: I'm not waiting for the chip to become ready, so I'm
potentially re-introducing the bug Scott was trying to solve with his
reboot notifier.
--
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-11-09 21:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-07-02 19:21 Hang on reboot in nand_get_device() Andrew E. Mileski
2015-11-06 18:00 ` Brian Norris
2015-11-06 18:59 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-11-09 19:46 ` Brian Norris
2015-11-09 19:56 ` Andrew E. Mileski
2015-11-09 20:49 ` Scott Branden
2015-11-09 20:55 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-11-09 21:36 ` Boris Brezillon [this message]
2015-11-09 21:44 ` Brian Norris
2015-11-09 21:51 ` Scott Branden
2015-11-10 0:22 ` Brian Norris
2015-11-09 18:43 ` Andrew E. Mileski
2015-11-09 19:16 ` Brian Norris
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=20151109223613.1e83b256@bbrezillon \
--to=boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com \
--cc=andrewm@isoar.ca \
--cc=computersforpeace@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=sbranden@broadcom.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