[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 2/2] gpio: gpiolib: set gpiochip_remove retval to void

To: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>, Lars-Peter Clausen <>, Ben Dooks <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] gpio: gpiolib: set gpiochip_remove retval to void
From: Andrzej Hajda <>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 08:57:32 +0200
Cc: driverdevel <>, Linux MIPS Mailing List <>, "" <>, David Daney <>, Linux-sh list <>, "" <>, Linus Walleij <>, "" <>, linux-wireless <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, Geert Uytterhoeven <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>,
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <>
List-help: <>
List-id: linux-mips <>
List-owner: <>
List-post: <>
List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0
List-subscribe: <>
List-unsubscribe: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
On 06/09/2014 03:43 PM, David Laight wrote:
> From: Of Andrzej Hajda
> ...
>>> You can't error out on module unload, although that's not really relevant
>>> here. gpiochip_remove() is typically called when the device that registered
>>> the GPIO chip is unbound. And despite some remove() callbacks having a
>>> return type of int you can not abort the removal of a device.
>> It is a design flaw in many subsystems having providers and consumers,
>> not only GPIO. The same situation is with clock providers, regulators,
>> phys, drm_panels, ..., at least it was such last time I have tested it.
>> The problem is that many frameworks assumes that lifetime of provider is
>> always bigger than lifetime of its consumers, and this is wrong
>> assumption - usually it is not possible to prevent unbinding driver from
>> device, so if the device is a provider there is no way to inform
>> consumers about his removal.
>> Some solution for such problems is to use some kind of availability
>> callbacks for requesting resources (gpios, clocks, regulators,...)
>> instead of simple 'getters' (clk_get, gpiod_get). Callbacks should
>> guarantee that the resource is always valid between callback reporting
>> its availability and callback reporting its removal. Such approach seems
>> to be complicated at the first sight but it should allow to make the
>> code safe and as a bonus it will allow to avoid deferred probing.
>> Btw I have send already RFC for such framework [1].
> Callbacks for delete are generally a locking nightmare.
> A two-way handshake is also usually needed to avoid problems
> with concurrent disconnect requests.

The framework I have proposed is lock-less[1] and concurrent requests
are serialized so both objections are invalid.

[1]: in fact the framework uses spinlock, but only to protect internal
list simple operations, and even this could be converted to fully
lock-less implementation.


>       David

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>