Re: [PATCH] net: wwan: qcom_bam_dmux: Fix missing pm_runtime_disable()

[Stephan Gerhold <stephan.gerhold@linaro.org>]

On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 10:25:28AM +0800, Jinjie Ruan wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2024/9/20 21:38, Stephan Gerhold wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 03:05:13PM +0200, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> >> On Fri, 20 Sept 2024 at 14:44, Stephan Gerhold
> >> <stephan.gerhold@linaro.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 01:48:15PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 06:07:11PM GMT, Jinjie Ruan wrote:
> >>>>> It's important to undo pm_runtime_use_autosuspend() with
> >>>>> pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend() at driver exit time.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But the pm_runtime_disable() and pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend()
> >>>>> is missing in the error path for bam_dmux_probe(). So add it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Please use devm_pm_runtime_enable(), which handles autosuspend.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> This would conflict with the existing cleanup in bam_dmux_remove(),
> >>> which probably needs to stay manually managed since the tear down order
> >>> is quite important there.
> >>
> >> Hmm, the setup and teardown code makes me wonder now.
> > 
> > Yeah, you ask the right questions. :-) It's really tricky to get this
> > 100% right. I spent quite some time to get close, but there are likely
> > still some loopholes. I haven't heard of anyone running into trouble,
> > though. This driver has been rock solid for the past few years.
> > 
> >> Are we guaranteed that the IRQs can not be delivered after suspending
> >> the device?
> > 
> > I think bam_dmux_remove() should be safe. disable_irq(dmux->pc_irq)
> > prevents any further delivery of IRQs before doing the final power off.
> > 
> >> Also is there a race between IRQs being enabled, manual check of the
> >> IRQ state and the pc_ack / power_off calls?
> > 
> > Yes, I'm pretty sure this race exists in theory. I'm not sure how to
> > avoid it. We would need an atomic "return current state and enable IRQ"
> > operation, but I don't think this exists at the moment. Do you have any
> > suggestions?
> 
> Maybe use IRQF_NO_AUTOEN flag to reuqest irq and enable_irq() after that?
> 

I thought about that too, but I think that might introduce a small
window in between the two calls where we would miss the state change:

	irq_get_irqchip_state(..., IRQCHIP_STATE_LINE_LEVEL, ...);
	/* if an interrupt arrives here we will miss the state change */
	enable_irq();

Thanks,
Stephan