At 2023-03-19 22:22:22, "Jonathan Cameron" <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 10:36:04 -0700
>Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On 3/18/23 10:39, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>> > On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 17:12:39 +0800
>> > Zheng Wang <zyytlz.wz@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In at91_adc_probe, &st->touch_st.workq is bound with
>> >> at91_adc_workq_handler. Then it will be started by irq
>> >> handler at91_adc_touch_data_handler
>> >>
>> >> If we remove the driver which will call at91_adc_remove
>> >> to make cleanup, there may be a unfinished work.
>> >>
>> >> The possible sequence is as follows:
>> >>
>> >> Fix it by finishing the work before cleanup in the at91_adc_remove
>> >>
>> >> CPU0 CPU1
>> >>
>> >> |at91_adc_workq_handler
>> >> at91_adc_remove |
>> >> iio_device_unregister|
>> >> iio_dev_release |
>> >> kfree(iio_dev_opaque);|
>> >> |
>> >> |iio_push_to_buffers
>> >> |&iio_dev_opaque->buffer_list
>> >> |//use
>> >> Fixes: 23ec2774f1cc ("iio: adc: at91-sama5d2_adc: add support for position and pressure channels")
>> >> Signed-off-by: Zheng Wang <zyytlz.wz@xxxxxxx>
>> >> ---
>> >> drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c | 2 ++
>> >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c b/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c
>> >> index 50d02e5fc6fc..1b95d18d9e0b 100644
>> >> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c
>> >> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c
>> >> @@ -2495,6 +2495,8 @@ static int at91_adc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> >> struct iio_dev *indio_dev = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
>> >> struct at91_adc_state *st = iio_priv(indio_dev);
>> >>
>> >> + disable_irq_nosync(st->irq);
>> >> + cancel_work_sync(&st->touch_st.workq);
>> > I'd like some input form someone more familiar with this driver than I am.
>> >
>> > In particular, whilst it fixes the bug seen I'm not sure what the most
>> > logical ordering for the disable is or the best way to do it.
>> >
>> > I'd prefer to see the irq cut off at source by disabling it at the device
>> > feature that is generating the irq followed by cancelling or waiting for
>> > completion of any in flight work.
>> The usually way you'd do this by calling free_irq() before the
>> cancel_work_sync().
>
>I'd go a little further than that and disable the interrupt source at the
>device (if possible) then call free_irq() then cancel_work_sync()
>
>Otherwise the device is merrily monitoring something and generating interrupts
>that we don't care about. Might well be wasting power doing that, though I haven't
>checked the flow in this particular case.
>
Dear Lars-Peter Clausen,
Thank you for your response to my question. I appreciate your suggestion to disable the interrupt source at the device before calling free_irq() and cancel_work_sync().
However, I am not sure which specific function to use in order to achieve this.
Can you please provide more information on which function to use and how to use it?
Thank you very much for your help.
Best regards,
Zheng Wang
>Jonathan
