Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] spi: spi-mem: Add support for panic mem writes

From: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
To: Paul Cercueil <paul.cercueil@bootlin.com>
Cc: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev,
	 Pratyush Yadav <pratyush@kernel.org>,
	Michael Walle <mwalle@kernel.org>,
	 Takahiro Kuwano <takahiro.kuwano@infineon.com>,
	 Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
	Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com>,
	 Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
	 Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org>,  Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
	 "Guilherme G . Piccoli" <gpiccoli@igalia.com>,
	 linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
	 Bharat Bhushan <bbhushan2@marvell.com>,
	 Sunil Kovvuri Goutham <sgoutham@marvell.com>,
	 Tanmay Jagdale <tanmay@marvell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] spi: spi-mem: Add support for panic mem writes
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2026 11:18:08 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87se28y71r.fsf@bootlin.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <73139fed463dc3c32ccccfddb84d0f500066401f.camel@bootlin.com> (Paul Cercueil's message of "Wed, 14 Oct 2026 10:24:45 +0200")

On 14/10/2026 at 10:24:45 +02, Paul Cercueil <paul.cercueil@bootlin.com> wrote:

> Hi Miquèl,
>
> Le mardi 13 octobre 2026 à 17:57 +0200, Miquel Raynal a écrit :
>> Hi Paul,
>> 
>> On 13/10/2026 at 17:33:32 +02, Paul Cercueil <paul.cercueil@bootlin.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> > Hi Sashiko,
>> 
>> :-)
>> 
>> > > > -		ret = spi_mem_access_start(mem);
>> > > > +		if (!op->panic_write)
>> > > > +			ret = spi_mem_access_start(mem);
>> > > > +		else if (ctlr->auto_runtime_pm)
>> > > > +			ret = pm_runtime_get_if_active(ctlr-
>> > > > >dev.parent);
>> > > >  		if (ret)
>> > > >  			return ret;
>> > > 
>> > > [Severity: High]
>> > > Is it safe to call pm_runtime_get_if_active() here during a kernel panic?
>> > > 
>> > > pm_runtime_get_if_active() relies on pm_runtime_get_conditional(), which
>> > > unconditionally acquires dev->power.lock via spin_lock_irqsave(). In a
>> > > panic
>> > > context with NMIs or IRQs disabled, trying to acquire a spinlock that may
>> > > be
>> > > held by a halted CPU causes an infinite spin. On PREEMPT_RT,
>> > > spin_lock_irqsave()
>> > > maps to a sleeping rt_mutex, which is strictly forbidden in atomic
>> > > context.
>> > 
>> > ACK, I'll just drop pm_runtime_get_if_active() here, and restore the return
>> > -
>> > EOPNOTSUPP that was in v1 when ctlr->auto_runtime_pm is set.
>> 
>> This is tricky but automatically rules out about 1/6th of the
>> controllers (45 controllers set this boolean out of +300). I don't like
>> it much. I guess it deserves a comment in case someone ever wants to
>> enable this feature on their auto-RPM-enabled controller, to understand
>> why this is not possible. My gut feeling is that the runtime PM layer
>> lacks its own understanding of what a panic is. We should, I believe, be
>> able to query the usage_count of a controller without taking the lock
>> during a panic write.
>> 
>> Nevertheless, let's move forward and return an error for now.
>
> I guess I can use pm_runtime_active() then?

Ah, yes!

______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/