Re: [PATCH net-next v4 1/4] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: don't dispose of Global2 IRQ mappings from mdiobus code

[Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>]

On 3/15/23 09:38, Klaus Kudielka wrote:
> From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
> 
> irq_find_mapping() does not need irq_dispose_mapping(), only
> irq_create_mapping() does.
> 
> Calling irq_dispose_mapping() from mv88e6xxx_g2_irq_mdio_free() and from
> the error path of mv88e6xxx_g2_irq_mdio_setup() effectively means that
> the mdiobus logic (for internal PHY interrupts) is disposing of a
> hwirq->virq mapping which it is not responsible of (but instead, the
> function pair mv88e6xxx_g2_irq_setup() + mv88e6xxx_g2_irq_free() is).
> 
> With the current code structure, this isn't such a huge problem, because
> mv88e6xxx_g2_irq_mdio_free() is called relatively close to the real
> owner of the IRQ mappings:
> 
> mv88e6xxx_remove()
> -> mv88e6xxx_unregister_switch()
> -> mv88e6xxx_mdios_unregister()
>     -> mv88e6xxx_g2_irq_mdio_free()
> -> mv88e6xxx_g2_irq_free()
> 
> and the switch isn't 'live' in any way such that it would be able of
> generating interrupts at this point (mv88e6xxx_unregister_switch() has
> been called).
> 
> However, there is a desire to split mv88e6xxx_mdios_unregister() and
> mv88e6xxx_g2_irq_free() such that mv88e6xxx_mdios_unregister() only gets
> called from mv88e6xxx_teardown(). This is much more problematic, as can
> be seen below.
> 
> In a cross-chip scenario (say 3 switches d0032004.mdio-mii:10,
> d0032004.mdio-mii:11 and d0032004.mdio-mii:12 which form a single DSA
> tree), it is possible to unbind the device driver from a single switch
> (say d0032004.mdio-mii:10).
> 
> When that happens, mv88e6xxx_remove() will be called for just that one
> switch, and this will call mv88e6xxx_unregister_switch() which will tear
> down the entire tree (calling mv88e6xxx_teardown() for all 3 switches).
> 
> Assuming mv88e6xxx_mdios_unregister() was moved to mv88e6xxx_teardown(),
> at this stage, all 3 switches will have called irq_dispose_mapping() on
> their mdiobus virqs.
> 
> When we bind again the device driver to d0032004.mdio-mii:10,
> mv88e6xxx_probe() is called for it, which calls dsa_register_switch().
> The DSA tree is now complete again, and mv88e6xxx_setup() is called for
> all 3 switches.
> 
> Also assuming that mv88e6xxx_mdios_register() is moved to
> mv88e6xxx_setup() (the 2 assumptions go together), at this point,
> d0032004.mdio-mii:11 and d0032004.mdio-mii:12 don't have an IRQ mapping
> for the internal PHYs anymore, as they've disposed of it in
> mv88e6xxx_teardown(). Whereas switch d0032004.mdio-mii:10 has re-created
> it, because its code path comes from mv88e6xxx_probe().
> 
> Simply put, this change prepares the driver to handle the movement of
> mv88e6xxx_mdios_register() to mv88e6xxx_setup() for cross-chip DSA trees.
> 
> Also, the code being deleted was partially wrong anyway (in a way which
> may have hidden this other issue). mv88e6xxx_g2_irq_mdio_setup()
> populates bus->irq[] starting with offset chip->info->phy_base_addr, but
> the teardown path doesn't apply that offset too. So it disposes of virq
> 0 for phy = [ 0, phy_base_addr ).
> 
> All switch families have phy_base_addr = 0, except for MV88E6141 and
> MV88E6341 which have it as 0x10. I guess those families would have
> happened to work by mistake in cross-chip scenarios too.
> 
> I'm deleting the body of mv88e6xxx_g2_irq_mdio_free() but leaving its
> call sites and prototype in place. This is because, if we ever need to
> add back some teardown procedure in the future, it will be perhaps
> error-prone to deduce the proper call sites again. Whereas like this,
> no extra code should get generated, it shouldn't bother anybody.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
> Signed-off-by: Klaus Kudielka <klaus.kudielka@gmail.com>

Reviewed-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
-- 
Florian