Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] gpio: gpiolib: Allow free() callback to be overridden

Lad, Prabhakar
2022-05-12T13:50:47Z

Hi Marc,

On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 2:24 PM Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 12 May 2022 13:48:53 +0100,
> "Lad, Prabhakar" <prabhakar.csengg@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Marc,
> >
> > Thank you for the review.
> >
> > On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 12:19 PM Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 11 May 2022 19:32:08 +0100,
> > > Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Allow free() callback to be overridden from irq_domain_ops for
> > > > hierarchical chips.
> > > >
> > > > This allows drivers to free any resources which are allocated during
> > > > populate_parent_alloc_arg().
> > >
> > > Do you mean more than the fwspec? I don't see this being used.
> > >
> > The free callback is used in patch 5/5 where free is overridden by
> > rzg2l_gpio_irq_domain_free. I just gave an example there as an
> > populate_parent_alloc_arg() In actual in the child_to_parent_hwirq
> > callback I am using a bitmap [0] to get a free tint slot, this bitmap
> > needs freeing up when the GPIO interrupt is released from the driver
> > that as when overridden free callback frees the allocated tint slot so
> > that its available for re-use.
>
> Right, so that's actually a different life-cycle, and the whole
> populate_parent_alloc_arg() is a red herring. What you want is to free
> resources that have been allocated via some other paths. It'd be good
Is there any other path which I have missed where I can free up resources?

> if your commit message actually reflected this instead of using an
> example that doesn't actually exist.
>
My bad, I will update the commit message.

> >
> > > There is also the question of why we need to have dynamic allocation
> > > for the fwspec itself. Why isn't that a simple stack allocation in the
> > > context of gpiochip_hierarchy_irq_domain_alloc()?
> > >
> > you mean gpio core itself should handle the fwspec
> > allocation/freeing?
>
> Yes. The only reason we resort to dynamic allocation is because
> ThunderX is using MSI-based GPIOs, and thus doesn't use a fwspec (no
> firmware is involved here).
>
I see..

> If we had a union of the two types, we could just have a stack
> variable, and pass that along, completely sidestepping the whole
> dynamic allocation/freeing business.
>
Right agreed.

Cheers,
Prabhakar