On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 1:07 PM Lukas Wunner <lukas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 04:56:38PM -0700, Saravana Kannan wrote: > > When an SPI device is unregistered, the spi->controller->cleanup() is > > called in the device's release callback. That's wrong for a couple of > > reasons: > > > > 1. spi_dev_put() can be called before spi_add_device() is called. And > > it's spi_add_device() that calls spi_setup(). This will cause clean() > > to get called without the spi device ever being setup. > > Well, yes, but it's not a big problem in practice so far: > > I've checked all drivers and there are only four which are affected > by this: spi-mpc512x-psc.c spi-pic32.c spi-s3c64xx.c spi-st-ssc4.c > > They all fiddle with the chipselect GPIO in their ->cleanup hook > and the GPIO may not have been requested yet because that happens > during ->setup. > > All the other drivers merely invoke kzalloc() on ->setup and kfree() > on ->cleanup. The order doesn't matter in this case because > kfree(NULL) is a no-op. Thanks, Lukas, for jumping in. > > 2. There's no guarantee that the controller's driver would be present by > > the time the spi device's release function gets called. > > How so? spi_devices are instantiated on ->probe of the controller > via spi_register_controller() and destroyed on ->remove via > spi_unregister_controller(). I don't see how the controller driver > could ever be unavailable, so this point seems moot. > > > > Fix these issues by simply moving the cleanup from the device release > > callback to the actual spi_unregister_device() function. > > Unfortunately the fix is wrong, it introduces a new problem: > > > @@ -713,6 +717,8 @@ void spi_unregister_device(struct spi_device *spi) > > if (!spi) > > return; > > > > + spi_cleanup(spi); > > + > > if (spi->dev.of_node) { > > of_node_clear_flag(spi->dev.of_node, OF_POPULATED); > > of_node_put(spi->dev.of_node); > > Now you're running ->cleanup before the SPI slave's driver is unbound. > That's bad, the driver may need to access the physical device on unbound, > e.g. to quiesce interrupts. That may not work now because the > slave's controller_state is gone. > > NAK, this needs to be reverted. I guess somebody should send the actual revert. Are you going to do so? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko