On Sat, Oct 5, 2024 at 9:46 AM Kent Gibson <warthog618@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 04:43:26PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > There is a problem with gpiod_direction_output/input(), namely the fact > > that they can be called both from sleeping as well as atomic context. We > > cannot call the blocking notifier from atomic and we cannot switch to > > atomic notifier because the pinctrl functions we call higher up the stack > > take a mutex. Let's instead use a workqueue and schedule a task to emit > > the event from process context on the unbound system queue for minimal > > latencies. > > > > So now there is a race between the state of the desc changing and the > notified reading it? > Theoretically? Well, yes... In practice I don't think this would matter. But I understand the concern and won't insist if it's a deal-breaker for you. Ideally we'd switch to an atomic notifier but I don't have a good idea on how to handle pinctrl_gpio_can_use_line(). It digs deep into the pinctrl code and it's all synchronized with a mutex. Unlike GPIO, it doesn't make any sense to spend days converting pinctrl to SRCU for a single corner-case. I wanted to use in_atomic() to determine whether we can emit the event immediately or (if we're in interrupt or with a spinlock taken) we should use a workqueue as a fallback but checkpatch.pl is very adamant about it being an error (in capital reds). Bart