Re: [PATCH net-next v3 2/3] net: stmmac: Add glue driver for Motorcomm YT6801 ethernet controller

Russell King (Oracle)
2025-12-08T10:54:06Z

On Mon, Dec 08, 2025 at 11:47:23AM +0100, Philipp Stanner wrote:
> On Mon, 2025-12-08 at 10:15 +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 08, 2025 at 10:54:36AM +0100, Philipp Stanner wrote:
> > > The bad news is that it's not super trivial to remove. I looked into it
> > > about two times and decided I can't invest that time currently. You
> > > need to go over all drivers again to see who uses pcim_enable_device(),
> > > then add free_irq_vecs() for them all and so on…
> >
> > So that I can confirm, you're saying that all drivers that call
> > pci_alloc_irq_vectors() should call pci_free_irq_vectors() in their
> > ->remove() method and not rely on the devres behaviour that
> > pcim_enable_device() will permit.
>
> "permit" is kind of a generous word. This behavior is dangerous and
> there were bugs because of that in the past, because it confused
> programmers. See:
>
> f00059b4c1b0 drm/vboxvideo: fix mapping leaks
>
>
> pcim_enable_device() used to switch all sorts of functions into managed
> mode. As far as I could figure out through git, back in 2009 it was
> intended that ALL pci functions are switched into managed mode that
> way. That's also how it was documented.
>
> The ecosystem then fractured, however. Some functions were always
> managed (pcim_), some never, and some sometimes.
>
> I removed all "sometimes managed" functions since 2024. The last
> remainder is MSI.
>
> If we want to remove that, we need to:
> 1. Find all drivers that rely on pci_free_irq_vectors() being run
> automatically. IOW those that use pcim_enable_device() + wrappers
> around pci_setup_msi_context().
> 2. Port those drivers to do the free_irq_vecs manually, if it's not
> a problem if it's called twice. If that were a problem, those
> drivers would also need to replace pcim_enable_device() with
> pci_enable_device().
> 3. Once all drivers are ported, remove the devres code from msi.c
> 4. Do associated cleanup work in PCI.
>
> >
> > In terms of whether it's safe to call this twice, pci_free_irq_vectors()
> > calls pci_disable_msix() and pci_disable_msi().
> >
> > pci_disable_msix() checks:
> >
> >         if (!pci_msi_enabled() || !dev || !dev->msix_enabled)
> >                 return;
> >
> > which will set dev->msix_enabled to 0 via pci_msix_shutdown().
> >
> > pci_disable_msi() does a similar check:
> >
> >         if (!pci_msi_enabled() || !dev || !dev->msi_enabled)
> >                 return;
> >
> > and similarly pci_msi_shutdown() sets dev->msi_enabled to 0.
> >
> > So my conclusion is it's safe to call pci_free_irq_vectors() twice for
> > the same device.
> >
>
> Hm. Looks good.

So, what do you want to see for new drivers such as the one at the top
of this thread? Should they explicitly call pci_free_irq_vectors() even
though they call pcim_enable_device() ?

--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!