From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3981C46467 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2023 07:44:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232056AbjAPHoS (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jan 2023 02:44:18 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:53834 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232076AbjAPHoF (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jan 2023 02:44:05 -0500 Received: from fllv0016.ext.ti.com (fllv0016.ext.ti.com [198.47.19.142]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B33D12050; Sun, 15 Jan 2023 23:43:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from fllv0034.itg.ti.com ([10.64.40.246]) by fllv0016.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 30G7hfOW047416; Mon, 16 Jan 2023 01:43:41 -0600 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1673855021; bh=r6r7bcwwLxuMz7+5qr6v4Afvf5m5s0L4caeVGAAIpf8=; h=Date:CC:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=HGNU2vvT+Gf6hSUfWjsU8uHc+MSD0gIzi+iKqwYzOCQ8vNCQib8+pLWQ3G+DraAEb LXsHQuTqsuX8Mw+zrB4OdQE7VTJRhk0vRobsEuHf6wG1wt4EDXE2fjyIo0rEtm8tqM CLLSxmHRWT9GgjLepwgdD7qNFWjKL6ZgDYmyguEA= Received: from DFLE113.ent.ti.com (dfle113.ent.ti.com [10.64.6.34]) by fllv0034.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 30G7hfvT046089 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 16 Jan 2023 01:43:41 -0600 Received: from DFLE102.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.23) by DFLE113.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2507.16; Mon, 16 Jan 2023 01:43:41 -0600 Received: from lelv0327.itg.ti.com (10.180.67.183) by DFLE102.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2507.16 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 16 Jan 2023 01:43:41 -0600 Received: from [172.24.145.61] (ileaxei01-snat.itg.ti.com [10.180.69.5]) by lelv0327.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 30G7hbIF106985; Mon, 16 Jan 2023 01:43:37 -0600 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2023 13:13:36 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.4.2 CC: , , , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] net: ethernet: ti: am65-cpsw/cpts: Fix CPTS release action Content-Language: en-US To: Leon Romanovsky References: <20230116044517.310461-1-s-vadapalli@ti.com> From: Siddharth Vadapalli In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On 16/01/23 13:00, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 10:15:17AM +0530, Siddharth Vadapalli wrote: >> The am65_cpts_release() function is registered as a devm_action in the >> am65_cpts_create() function in am65-cpts driver. When the am65-cpsw driver >> invokes am65_cpts_create(), am65_cpts_release() is added in the set of devm >> actions associated with the am65-cpsw driver's device. >> >> In the event of probe failure or probe deferral, the platform_drv_probe() >> function invokes dev_pm_domain_detach() which powers off the CPSW and the >> CPSW's CPTS hardware, both of which share the same power domain. Since the >> am65_cpts_disable() function invoked by the am65_cpts_release() function >> attempts to reset the CPTS hardware by writing to its registers, the CPTS >> hardware is assumed to be powered on at this point. However, the hardware >> is powered off before the devm actions are executed. >> >> Fix this by getting rid of the devm action for am65_cpts_release() and >> invoking it directly on the cleanup and exit paths. >> >> Fixes: f6bd59526ca5 ("net: ethernet: ti: introduce am654 common platform time sync driver") >> Signed-off-by: Siddharth Vadapalli >> Reviewed-by: Roger Quadros >> --- >> Changes from v1: >> 1. Fix the build issue when "CONFIG_TI_K3_AM65_CPTS" is not set. This >> error was reported by kernel test robot at: >> https://lore.kernel.org/r/202301142105.lt733Lt3-lkp@intel.com/ >> 2. Collect Reviewed-by tag from Roger Quadros. >> >> v1: >> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230113104816.132815-1-s-vadapalli@ti.com/ >> >> drivers/net/ethernet/ti/am65-cpsw-nuss.c | 8 ++++++++ >> drivers/net/ethernet/ti/am65-cpts.c | 15 +++++---------- >> drivers/net/ethernet/ti/am65-cpts.h | 5 +++++ >> 3 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/am65-cpsw-nuss.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/am65-cpsw-nuss.c >> index 5cac98284184..00f25d8a026b 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/am65-cpsw-nuss.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/am65-cpsw-nuss.c >> @@ -1913,6 +1913,12 @@ static int am65_cpsw_am654_get_efuse_macid(struct device_node *of_node, >> return 0; >> } >> >> +static void am65_cpsw_cpts_cleanup(struct am65_cpsw_common *common) >> +{ >> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_TI_K3_AM65_CPTS) && common->cpts) > > Why do you have IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_TI_K3_AM65_CPTS), if > am65_cpts_release() defined as empty when CONFIG_TI_K3_AM65_CPTS not set? > > How is it possible to have common->cpts == NULL? Thank you for reviewing the patch. I realize now that checking CONFIG_TI_K3_AM65_CPTS is unnecessary. common->cpts remains NULL in the following cases: 1. am65_cpsw_init_cpts() returns 0 since CONFIG_TI_K3_AM65_CPTS is not enabled. 2. am65_cpsw_init_cpts() returns -ENOENT since the cpts node is not defined. 3. The call to am65_cpts_create() fails within the am65_cpsw_init_cpts() function with a return value of 0 when cpts is disabled. 4. The call to am65_cpts_create() within the am65_cpsw_init_cpts() function fails with an error. Of the above cases, the am65_cpsw_cpts_cleanup() function would have to handle cases 1 and 3, since the probe might fail at a later point, following which the probe cleanup path will invoke the am65_cpts_cpts_cleanup() function. This function then checks for common->cpts not being NULL, so that it can invoke the am65_cpts_release() function with this pointer. > > And why do you need special am65_cpsw_cpts_cleanup() which does nothing > except call to am65_cpts_release()? It will be more intuitive change > the latter to be exported function. The am65_cpts_release() function expects the cpts pointer to be valid. Thus, I had added the am65_cpsw_cpts_cleanup() function to conditionally invoke the am65_cpts_release() function whenever the cpts pointer is valid. Based on your suggestion, I believe that you want me to check for the cpts pointer being valid within the am65_cpts_release() function instead, so that the am65_cpsw_cpts_cleanup() function doesn't have to be added. Please let me know if this is what you meant. Regards, Siddharth.