Hi Bartosz, thanks for the feedback.
On Thu, 2020-11-05 at 10:42 +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 10:28 AM Nicolas Saenz Julienne
> <nsaenzjulienne@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hi Bartosz, thanks for the review.
> >
> > On Thu, 2020-11-05 at 10:13 +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > > +/**
> > > > + * devm_rpi_firmware_get - Get pointer to rpi_firmware structure.
> > > > + * @firmware_node: Pointer to the firmware Device Tree node.
> > > > + *
> > > > + * Returns NULL is the firmware device is not ready.
> > > > + */
> > > > +struct rpi_firmware *devm_rpi_firmware_get(struct device *dev,
> > > > + struct device_node *firmware_node)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct platform_device *pdev = of_find_device_by_node(firmware_node);
> > > > + struct rpi_firmware *fw;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (!pdev)
> > > > + return NULL;
> > > > +
> > > > + fw = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> > > > + if (!fw)
> > > > + return NULL;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (!refcount_inc_not_zero(&fw->consumers))
> > > > + return NULL;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, rpi_firmware_put, fw))
> > > > + return NULL;
> > > > +
> > > > + return fw;
> > > > +}
> > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(devm_rpi_firmware_get);
> > >
> > > Usually I'd expect the devres variant to simply call
> > > rpi_firmware_get() and then schedule a release callback which would
> > > call whatever function is the release counterpart for it currently.
> > > Devres actions are for drivers which want to schedule some more
> > > unusual tasks at driver detach. Any reason for designing it this way?
> >
> > Yes, see patch #8 where I get rid of rpi_firmware_get() altogether after
> > converting all users to devres. Since there is no use for the vanilla version
> > of the function anymore, I figured it'd be better to merge everything into
> > devm_rpi_firmware_get(). That said it's not something I have strong feelings
> > about.
> >
>
> I see. So the previous version didn't really have any reference
> counting and it leaked the reference returned by
> of_find_device_by_node(), got it. Could you just clarify for me the
> logic behind the wait_queue in rpi_firmware_remove()? If the firmware
> driver gets detached and remove() stops on the wait_queue - it will be
> stuck until the last user releases the firmware. I'm not sure this is
> correct.
Yes, that's what I meant to implement.
> I'd prefer to see a kref with a release callback and remove
> would simply decrease the kref and return. Each user would do the same
> and then after the last user is detached the firmware would be
> destroyed.
Sounds good to me. I'll update it.
> Don't we really have some centralized firmware subsystem that would handle this?
Sadly no, this is an RPi specific thing, it doesn't live behind a standard like
other firmware based protocols (for ex. SCMI), and evolves as the needs arise.
Regards,
Nicolas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
