On 17/09/2024 10:03, André Draszik wrote:
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static int max20339_lsw_dt_parse(struct device_node *np,
>>> + const struct regulator_desc *desc,
>>> + struct regulator_config *cfg)
>>> +{
>>> + struct max20339_regulator *data = cfg->driver_data;
>>> +
>>> + /* we turn missing properties into a fatal issue during probe() */
>>
>> Your binding does not look in sync with above.
>
> Do you mean it doesn't enforce existence of this property? (It does and
> binding check appropriately complains if it's missing). Otherwise, can
> you please point me to the problem you're seeing?
Indeed, it's in the subnode. It's fine.
>
> From the binding:
>
> +properties:
> + [...]
> + regulators:
> + type: object
> + [...]
> + patternProperties:
> + "^lsw[12]$":
> + [...]
> + properties:
> + [...]
> + shunt-resistor-micro-ohms:
> + [...]
> + required:
> + - shunt-resistor-micro-ohms
> +
> + unevaluatedProperties: false
> +
> + required:
> + - lsw1
> + - lsw2
> +
> + additionalProperties: false
> +
> +[...]
> +
> +required:
> + [...]
> + - regulators
>
> Anything wrong or missing in the above?
>
>>> [...]
>>> + }, \
>>> + .ovp_mask = _ovp_mask, \
>>> + .status_reg = _status_reg, \
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +
>>
>> Here and in few other places - just one blank line.
>
> OK.
>
>>> +static struct max20339_regulator max20339_regulators[MAX20339_N_REGULATORS] = {
>>
>> This can be const and then use container_of instead of rdev_get_drvdata().
>>
>> See:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240909-regulator-const-v1-17-8934704a5787@xxxxxxxxxx/
>
> Thanks!
>
>> [...]
>>> +
>>> + irq_flags = IRQF_ONESHOT | IRQF_SHARED;
>>
>> Why shared?
>
> Just to be nice in case somebody puts it on a shared line. Not actually
> required in my case.
>
>>> + irq_flags |= irqd_get_trigger_type(irq_get_irq_data(client->irq));
>>> +
>>> + ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(&client->dev, client->irq,
>>
>> Shared interrupts should not be devm. It leads to tricky cases during
>> removal. If you investigated the code and you are 100% sure there is no
>> issue, please write a short comment in the code confirming that. Or just
>> don't use devm.
>
> I wasn't aware of this, thanks. I'll drop the shared and somebody can
> revisit it in the future if required. BTW, a naive grep returned +400
> drivers that use shared together with devm.
Yeah, I was once thinking to check them, because there is an easy hint
problems are possible: if driver has remove() callback which does
anything with resources. However even if driver code looks unsafe, it
requires quite some time to figure out if the issue is real - need to
find other driver who will trigger the interrupt afterwards.
You can BTW test it with CONFIG_DEBUG_SHIRQ + bind/unbind.
Maybe we need some more explicit documentation around devm() or IRQF_SHARED.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
