This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled pwm: sifive: Reduce time the controller lock is held to the 5.10-stable tree which can be found at: http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary The filename of the patch is: pwm-sifive-reduce-time-the-controller-lock-is-held.patch and it can be found in the queue-5.10 subdirectory. If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree, please let <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> know about it. commit 4f0c47a24ed2a3eb67bd0c620ab860e77aafb8ea Author: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu Jul 21 12:31:25 2022 +0200 pwm: sifive: Reduce time the controller lock is held [ Upstream commit 0f02f491b786143f08eb19840f1cf4f12aec6dee ] The lock is only to serialize access and update to user_count and approx_period between different PWMs served by the same pwm_chip. So the lock needs only to be taken during the check if the (chip global) period can and/or needs to be changed. Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Tested-by: Emil Renner Berthing <emil.renner.berthing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> Stable-dep-of: 334c7b13d383 ("pwm: sifive: Always let the first pwm_apply_state succeed") Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-sifive.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-sifive.c index 12e9e23272ab1..400cc91057acf 100644 --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-sifive.c +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-sifive.c @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ struct pwm_sifive_ddata { struct pwm_chip chip; - struct mutex lock; /* lock to protect user_count */ + struct mutex lock; /* lock to protect user_count and approx_period */ struct notifier_block notifier; struct clk *clk; void __iomem *regs; @@ -76,6 +76,7 @@ static void pwm_sifive_free(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm) mutex_unlock(&ddata->lock); } +/* Called holding ddata->lock */ static void pwm_sifive_update_clock(struct pwm_sifive_ddata *ddata, unsigned long rate) { @@ -163,7 +164,6 @@ static int pwm_sifive_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, return ret; } - mutex_lock(&ddata->lock); cur_state = pwm->state; enabled = cur_state.enabled; @@ -182,14 +182,17 @@ static int pwm_sifive_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, /* The hardware cannot generate a 100% duty cycle */ frac = min(frac, (1U << PWM_SIFIVE_CMPWIDTH) - 1); + mutex_lock(&ddata->lock); if (state->period != ddata->approx_period) { if (ddata->user_count != 1) { + mutex_unlock(&ddata->lock); ret = -EBUSY; goto exit; } ddata->approx_period = state->period; pwm_sifive_update_clock(ddata, clk_get_rate(ddata->clk)); } + mutex_unlock(&ddata->lock); writel(frac, ddata->regs + PWM_SIFIVE_PWMCMP(pwm->hwpwm)); @@ -198,7 +201,6 @@ static int pwm_sifive_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm, exit: clk_disable(ddata->clk); - mutex_unlock(&ddata->lock); return ret; }