Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] firmware: exynos-acpm: allow use during system shutdown

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 25/03/2025 09:01, André Draszik wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 
> On Tue, 2025-03-25 at 08:57 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 24/03/2025 16:34, André Draszik wrote:
>>> +static bool acpm_may_sleep(void)
>>> +{
>>> +	return system_state <= SYSTEM_RUNNING ||
>>> +		(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT) ? preemptible() : !irqs_disabled());
>>> +}
>>> +
>>>  /**
>>>   * acpm_dequeue_by_polling() - RX dequeue by polling.
>>>   * @achan:	ACPM channel info.
>>> @@ -300,7 +314,10 @@ static int acpm_dequeue_by_polling(struct acpm_chan *achan,
>>>  			return 0;
>>>  
>>>  		/* Determined experimentally. */
>>> -		usleep_range(20, 30);
>>> +		if (!acpm_may_sleep())
>>> +			udelay(10);
>>> +		else
>>
>> ... and what do you do if IRQs get disabled exactly in this moment? This
>> is just racy. You cannot check for a condition and assume it will be
>> valid for whatever time you want it to be valid.
>>
>> What happens if system_state is changed to shutdown in this particular
>> moment? How did you prevent this from happening?
> 
> Yes, and that's also what the I2C subsystem is doing, AFAICS, see
> i2c_in_atomic_xfer_mode() and its use. This is to make a very
> specific corner case work, similar to I2C which has to deal with
> the same issue during shutdown.

But they don't have a choice so they try to do the best to avoid
sleeping. And it is a subsystem, not a driver, which means their
patterns are sometimes special. Drivers should not replicate subsystem
workarounds.

> 
> Would you have a better suggestion?

Yes, you have a choice, you can always use udelay. Driver code is
supposed to be always correct.

Best regards,
Krzysztof