On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 01:13:56PM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Looking at the code it seems that you're adding checks to skip calls in > > the standard enable and disable paths but not touching other paths, > > based on this patch by itself I can't tell if this is a good idea or > > not. It certainly doesn't feel robust - if we're missing reference > > counting skipping operations seems likely to lead to other bugs popping > > up elsewhere when the other user that isn't doing a disable currently > > decides to start doing so. > I guess it depends on whether _regulator_do_enable() on an > already-enabled rdev is supposed to be a noop or not. My assumption > was that it was supposed to be a noop with reference counting handled > by _regulator_enable(). Yes, that's the point. > My assumption is that regulator drivers themselves shouldn't do > reference counting. That is: if you call > rdev->desc->ops->enable(rdev) twice you should not have to call > rdev->desc->ops->disable(rdev) twice to disable. Right? That means > my fix is making the "ena_pin" symmetric to how normal regulator > drivers work. > The refcounting being skipped by my patch is refcounting that's used > only when the same GPIO is shared by more than one regulator. That > is, if "vcc_a" uses GPIO1 and "vcc_b" also uses "GPIO1" we need > refcounting. GPIO1 will be in the "on" state if either vcc_a or vcc_b > is on. The problem came in because _regulator_do_enable() was > incrementing the shared refcount every time it was called even if the > specific regulator was already on. This is all analysis which should have been in the changelog... possibly not quite so verbosely but it should be there. > Anyway, I looked at Javier's patch and it's also fine / reasonable. > ...and in fact I would argue that possibly we could take both patches. > Javier's patch eliminates the one known place where > _regulator_do_enable() is called for an already-enabled regulator and > my patch means that if someone else adds a new call we won't end up > back in this same subtle bug. I'm happy to update the CL desc to make > it more obvious if you'd like. Yes, the changelog definitely needs to be *much* clearer. Especially for things like locking and reference counting the changelog needs to explain what the fix is and why it's safe, without that working it is a lot harder to do a review as the reviewer needs to go back and check that everything has been thought through properly.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature