From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 772F5208CA for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 13:24:26 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b="UH9QZihy" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E9E0AC433C7; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 13:24:25 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1699277066; bh=zr1YLyHKezK/F4PK/5pSgB+zSVlRf/rw4i8fN0mnDlU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=UH9QZihypug5htZigODq3UIcpfWNw2REDNBdfD1K6otEQcB9XUyv08DhdKq4Bdg47 AC0r4KGZNclTvnE0qUsqD3Qfj226ZssE6iqRhua/SxyEk5ifc4UhSl+9YSekKhxBjN +6BpiG63EMWzM8Jy8gvpuH+4q0yE8wNzg3824f6k= From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: stable@vger.kernel.org Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , patches@lists.linux.dev, Linus Walleij , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Sasha Levin Subject: [PATCH 5.15 003/128] pinctrl: qcom: lpass-lpi: fix concurrent register updates Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2023 14:02:43 +0100 Message-ID: <20231106130309.279396477@linuxfoundation.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.42.0 In-Reply-To: <20231106130309.112650042@linuxfoundation.org> References: <20231106130309.112650042@linuxfoundation.org> User-Agent: quilt/0.67 X-stable: review X-Patchwork-Hint: ignore Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: patches@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 5.15-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. ------------------ From: Krzysztof Kozlowski [ Upstream commit c8befdc411e5fd1bf95a13e8744c8ca79b412bee ] The Qualcomm LPASS LPI pin controller driver uses one lock for guarding Read-Modify-Write code for slew rate registers. However the pin configuration and muxing registers have exactly the same RMW code but are not protected. Pin controller framework does not provide locking here, thus it is possible to trigger simultaneous change of pin configuration registers resulting in non-atomic changes. Protect from concurrent access by re-using the same lock used to cover the slew rate register. Using the same lock instead of adding second one will make more sense, once we add support for newer Qualcomm SoC, where slew rate is configured in the same register as pin configuration/muxing. Fixes: 6e261d1090d6 ("pinctrl: qcom: Add sm8250 lpass lpi pinctrl driver") Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231013145705.219954-1-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin --- drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-lpass-lpi.c | 17 +++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-lpass-lpi.c b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-lpass-lpi.c index dd1c9fd733c8f..ec37ad43a6364 100644 --- a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-lpass-lpi.c +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-lpass-lpi.c @@ -102,7 +102,8 @@ struct lpi_pinctrl { char __iomem *tlmm_base; char __iomem *slew_base; struct clk_bulk_data clks[MAX_LPI_NUM_CLKS]; - struct mutex slew_access_lock; + /* Protects from concurrent register updates */ + struct mutex lock; const struct lpi_pinctrl_variant_data *data; }; @@ -330,9 +331,11 @@ static int lpi_gpio_set_mux(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev, unsigned int function, if (WARN_ON(i == g->nfuncs)) return -EINVAL; + mutex_lock(&pctrl->lock); val = lpi_gpio_read(pctrl, pin, LPI_GPIO_CFG_REG); u32p_replace_bits(&val, i, LPI_GPIO_FUNCTION_MASK); lpi_gpio_write(pctrl, pin, LPI_GPIO_CFG_REG, val); + mutex_unlock(&pctrl->lock); return 0; } @@ -438,14 +441,14 @@ static int lpi_config_set(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev, unsigned int group, if (slew_offset == NO_SLEW) break; - mutex_lock(&pctrl->slew_access_lock); + mutex_lock(&pctrl->lock); sval = ioread32(pctrl->slew_base + LPI_SLEW_RATE_CTL_REG); sval &= ~(LPI_SLEW_RATE_MASK << slew_offset); sval |= arg << slew_offset; iowrite32(sval, pctrl->slew_base + LPI_SLEW_RATE_CTL_REG); - mutex_unlock(&pctrl->slew_access_lock); + mutex_unlock(&pctrl->lock); break; default: return -EINVAL; @@ -461,6 +464,7 @@ static int lpi_config_set(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev, unsigned int group, lpi_gpio_write(pctrl, group, LPI_GPIO_VALUE_REG, val); } + mutex_lock(&pctrl->lock); val = lpi_gpio_read(pctrl, group, LPI_GPIO_CFG_REG); u32p_replace_bits(&val, pullup, LPI_GPIO_PULL_MASK); @@ -469,6 +473,7 @@ static int lpi_config_set(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev, unsigned int group, u32p_replace_bits(&val, output_enabled, LPI_GPIO_OE_MASK); lpi_gpio_write(pctrl, group, LPI_GPIO_CFG_REG, val); + mutex_unlock(&pctrl->lock); return 0; } @@ -642,7 +647,7 @@ static int lpi_pinctrl_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) pctrl->chip.of_gpio_n_cells = 2; pctrl->chip.can_sleep = false; - mutex_init(&pctrl->slew_access_lock); + mutex_init(&pctrl->lock); pctrl->ctrl = devm_pinctrl_register(dev, &pctrl->desc, pctrl); if (IS_ERR(pctrl->ctrl)) { @@ -660,7 +665,7 @@ static int lpi_pinctrl_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) return 0; err_pinctrl: - mutex_destroy(&pctrl->slew_access_lock); + mutex_destroy(&pctrl->lock); clk_bulk_disable_unprepare(MAX_LPI_NUM_CLKS, pctrl->clks); return ret; @@ -670,7 +675,7 @@ static int lpi_pinctrl_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) { struct lpi_pinctrl *pctrl = platform_get_drvdata(pdev); - mutex_destroy(&pctrl->slew_access_lock); + mutex_destroy(&pctrl->lock); clk_bulk_disable_unprepare(MAX_LPI_NUM_CLKS, pctrl->clks); return 0; -- 2.42.0