[PATCH 1/2] gpio: sysfs: fix forward declaration of struct gpio_device

[PATCH 1/2] gpio: sysfs: fix forward declaration of struct gpio_device

[Bartosz Golaszewski]

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

The forward declaration for struct gpio_device should be provided for
both branches of the #ifdef.

Fixes: 08a149c40bdb ("gpiolib: Clean up headers")
Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>
---
 drivers/gpio/gpiolib-sysfs.h | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-sysfs.h b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-sysfs.h
index 0f213bdb4732..b794b396d6a5 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-sysfs.h
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-sysfs.h
@@ -3,10 +3,10 @@
 #ifndef GPIOLIB_SYSFS_H
 #define GPIOLIB_SYSFS_H
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_GPIO_SYSFS
-
 struct gpio_device;
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_GPIO_SYSFS
+
 int gpiochip_sysfs_register(struct gpio_device *gdev);
 void gpiochip_sysfs_unregister(struct gpio_device *gdev);
 
-- 
2.40.1

[PATCH 2/2] gpio: 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       | 158 ++++++++++++++++++-----------------
 drivers/gpio/gpiolib.h       |   1 -
 4 files changed, 89 insertions(+), 102 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 a5faaea6915d..f0a51d465df9 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(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 +908,44 @@ int gpiochip_add_data_with_key(struct gpio_chip *gc, void *data,
 
 	gdev->ngpio = gc->ngpio;
 
-	spin_lock_irqsave(&gpio_lock, flags);
-
-	/*
-	 * 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(gc->ngpio);
+	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;
 		if (base < 0) {
-			spin_unlock_irqrestore(&gpio_lock, flags);
-			ret = base;
-			base = 0;
+			base = gpiochip_find_base(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(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(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 +1037,8 @@ 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:
@@ -4741,35 +4748,32 @@ 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);
+	guard(mutex)(&gpio_devices_lock);
+
 	list_for_each_entry(gdev, &gpio_devices, list)
-		if (index-- == 0) {
-			spin_unlock_irqrestore(&gpio_lock, flags);
+		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 2/2] gpio: use a mutex to protect the list of GPIO devices

[Linus Walleij]

On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 8:37 PM 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>

Nice! I might have found some snag:

gpio_device_find() still does guard(spinlock_irqsave)(&gpio_lock);
shouldn't that be switched to the mutex?

On top of this I can update my patch to the delete the comment
for gpio_lock to just rename that thing to gpio_descriptor_lock
and document it as such.

But when I think about it: gpio[_decriptor]_lock can now (after this
patch) be moved into struct gpio_chip as it is really just protecting
the descriptors on the same chip from simultaneous modification,
especially desc->flags. This is a BIG WIN because it makes it a local
lock not a global one, do you wanna try it or should I? (On top of
these two patches, then.)

Yours,
Linus Walleij

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

[Bartosz Golaszewski]

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 3:21 PM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 8:37 PM 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>
>
> Nice! I might have found some snag:
>
> gpio_device_find() still does guard(spinlock_irqsave)(&gpio_lock);
> shouldn't that be switched to the mutex?
>

Good catch!

> On top of this I can update my patch to the delete the comment
> for gpio_lock to just rename that thing to gpio_descriptor_lock
> and document it as such.
>

No need, this will soon go away anyway. See below.

> But when I think about it: gpio[_decriptor]_lock can now (after this
> patch) be moved into struct gpio_chip as it is really just protecting
> the descriptors on the same chip from simultaneous modification,
> especially desc->flags. This is a BIG WIN because it makes it a local
> lock not a global one, do you wanna try it or should I? (On top of
> these two patches, then.)
>

I will have the series making locking in GPIOLIB more fine-grained
ready tomorrow or on Thursday. It will have separate locks for each
descriptor. We will use spinlock or mutex per descriptor depending on
the value of gc->can_sleep. I think it should work fine as a sleeping
chip can always use a mutex and a non-sleeping one cannot have
sleeping callbacks (correct me if I'm wrong).

We don't need to lock the GPIO device or chip separately - the
descriptor structs will stay alive as long as there's a live reference
to the GPIO device. GPIO device will have an SRCU cookie for
protecting API calls against removal of the chip.

To summarize: one mutex for the GPIO device list, one lock per GPIO
descriptor and SRCU protection of the GPIO device's chip.

Does it make sense?

Bart

> Yours,
> Linus Walleij

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

[Linus Walleij]

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 3:52 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl> wrote:

> We don't need to lock the GPIO device or chip separately - the
> descriptor structs will stay alive as long as there's a live reference
> to the GPIO device. GPIO device will have an SRCU cookie for
> protecting API calls against removal of the chip.
>
> To summarize: one mutex for the GPIO device list, one lock per GPIO
> descriptor and SRCU protection of the GPIO device's chip.
>
> Does it make sense?

Absolutely, standing by to review, it's gonna look awesome!

Linus

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

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 08:37:16PM +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.

...

> +	scoped_guard(mutex, &gpio_devices_lock) {

This is a lot of churn with this because of switching to RAII.
Can the body be firstly moved to a helper?

> +		/*
> +		 * 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.
> +		 */

...

>  	list_for_each_entry(gdev, &gpio_devices, list)
> +		if (index-- == 0)
>  			return gdev;

I believe this is better with outer {}.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

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

[Bartosz Golaszewski]

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:09 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 08:37:16PM +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.
>
> ...
>
> > +     scoped_guard(mutex, &gpio_devices_lock) {
>
> This is a lot of churn with this because of switching to RAII.
> Can the body be firstly moved to a helper?
>

But that would mean more churn. I don't get why you insist on
splitting these everytime. We're going from spinlock to a mutex so we
may as well use guards right away.

> > +             /*
> > +              * 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.
> > +              */
>
> ...
>
> >       list_for_each_entry(gdev, &gpio_devices, list)
> > +             if (index-- == 0)
> >                       return gdev;
>
> I believe this is better with outer {}.
>

Right.

Bart

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

Re: [PATCH 1/2] gpio: sysfs: fix forward declaration of struct gpio_device

[Linus Walleij]

On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 8:37 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl> wrote:

> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>
>
> The forward declaration for struct gpio_device should be provided for
> both branches of the #ifdef.
>
> Fixes: 08a149c40bdb ("gpiolib: Clean up headers")
> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>

Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>

Yours,
Linus Walleij

Re: [PATCH 1/2] gpio: sysfs: fix forward declaration of struct gpio_device

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 08:37:15PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>
> 
> The forward declaration for struct gpio_device should be provided for
> both branches of the #ifdef.

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

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH 1/2] gpio: sysfs: fix forward declaration of struct gpio_device

[Bartosz Golaszewski]

On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 8:37 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl> wrote:
>
> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>
>
> The forward declaration for struct gpio_device should be provided for
> both branches of the #ifdef.
>
> Fixes: 08a149c40bdb ("gpiolib: Clean up headers")
> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>
> ---
>  drivers/gpio/gpiolib-sysfs.h | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-sysfs.h b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-sysfs.h
> index 0f213bdb4732..b794b396d6a5 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-sysfs.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-sysfs.h
> @@ -3,10 +3,10 @@
>  #ifndef GPIOLIB_SYSFS_H
>  #define GPIOLIB_SYSFS_H
>
> -#ifdef CONFIG_GPIO_SYSFS
> -
>  struct gpio_device;
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_GPIO_SYSFS
> +
>  int gpiochip_sysfs_register(struct gpio_device *gdev);
>  void gpiochip_sysfs_unregister(struct gpio_device *gdev);
>
> --
> 2.40.1
>

I applied this. I'll make patch 2/2 part of the upcoming locking rework.

Bart