Re: [PATCH RFC 2/9] OPP: Export a number of helpers to prevent code duplication

[Sibi Sankar]

Hi Hsin-Yi,

I'll get this addressed in the next re-spin which I plan to post by
end of this week.

On 7/8/19 8:58 AM, Hsin-Yi Wang wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 3:28 PM Sibi Sankar <sibis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > +
> > +/* The caller must call dev_pm_opp_put() after the OPP is used */
> > +struct dev_pm_opp *dev_pm_opp_find_opp_of_np(struct opp_table *opp_table,
> > +                                            struct device_node *opp_np)
> > +{
> > +       return _find_opp_of_np(opp_table, opp_np);
> > +}
> Hi Sibi,
>
> Though this is not the latest version, we've seen following issue:
>
> We would get lockdep warnings on this:
> [   79.068957] Call trace:
> [   79.071396]  _find_opp_of_np+0xa0/0xa8
> [   79.075136]  dev_pm_opp_find_opp_of_np+0x24/0x30
> [   79.079744]  devfreq_passive_event_handler+0x304/0x51c
> [   79.084872]  devfreq_add_device+0x368/0x434
> [   79.089046]  devm_devfreq_add_device+0x68/0xb0
> [   79.093480]  mtk_cci_devfreq_probe+0x108/0x158
> [   79.097915]  platform_drv_probe+0x80/0xb0
> [   79.101915]  really_probe+0x1b4/0x28c
> [   79.105568]  driver_probe_device+0x64/0xfc
> [   79.109655]  __driver_attach+0x94/0xcc
> [   79.113395]  bus_for_each_dev+0x84/0xcc
> [   79.117221]  driver_attach+0x2c/0x38
> [   79.120788]  bus_add_driver+0x120/0x1f4
> [   79.124614]  driver_register+0x64/0xf8
> [   79.128355]  __platform_driver_register+0x4c/0x58
> [   79.133049]  mtk_cci_devfreq_init+0x1c/0x24
> [   79.137224]  do_one_initcall+0x1c0/0x3e0
> [   79.141138]  do_initcall_level+0x1f4/0x224
> [   79.145225]  do_basic_setup+0x34/0x4c
> [   79.148878]  kernel_init_freeable+0x10c/0x194
> [   79.153225]  kernel_init+0x14/0x100
> [   79.156705]  ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
> [   79.160270] irq event stamp: 238006
> [   79.163750] hardirqs last  enabled at (238005):
> [<ffffffa71fdea0a4>] _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x40/0x84
> [   79.173391] hardirqs last disabled at (238006):
> [<ffffffa71f480e78>] do_debug_exception+0x70/0x198
> [   79.182337] softirqs last  enabled at (237998):
> [<ffffffa71f48165c>] __do_softirq+0x45c/0x4a4
> [   79.190850] softirqs last disabled at (237987):
> [<ffffffa71f4bc0d4>] irq_exit+0xd8/0xf8
> [   79.198842] ---[ end trace 0e66a55077a0abab ]---
>
> In _find_opp_of_np()[1], there's
> lockdep_assert_held(&opp_table_lock);
>
> [1] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/opp/of.c#L75
>
> But in governor passive.c#cpufreq_passive_register(), it call
> dev_pm_opp_find_opp_of_np() directly, so it wouldn't access
> opp_table_lock lock.
>
> Another similar place is in dev_pm_opp_of_add_table(), most devfreq
> would call this to get opp table.
> dev_pm_opp_of_add_table
>   -->   _opp_add_static_v2
>      -->    _of_opp_alloc_required_opps  // would goes here if opp
> table contains "required-opps" property.
>          -->    _find_opp_of_np
> cpufreq-map governor needs devfreq to have "required-opps" property.
> So it would also trigger above lockdep warning.
>
>
> The question is: Is lockdep_assert_held(&opp_table_lock); needed in
> above use cases? Since they don't need to modify device and opp lists.
>
> Thanks

--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc, is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project