Re: [PATCH v2] drm: Add the new api to install irq

[Thomas Zimmermann]

Hi

Am 03.11.20 um 11:55 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 11:38:32AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 11:10:27AM +0100, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Am 03.11.20 um 10:52 schrieb Maxime Ripard:
>>>> On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 10:10:41AM +0800, Tian Tao wrote:
>>>>> Add new api devm_drm_irq_install() to register interrupts,
>>>>> no need to call drm_irq_uninstall() when the drm module is removed.
>>>>>
>>>>> v2:
>>>>> fixed the wrong parameter.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tian Tao <tiantao6@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>  include/drm/drm_drv.h     |  3 ++-
>>>>>  2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c
>>>>> index cd162d4..0fe5243 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c
>>>>> @@ -39,6 +39,7 @@
>>>>>  #include <drm/drm_color_mgmt.h>
>>>>>  #include <drm/drm_drv.h>
>>>>>  #include <drm/drm_file.h>
>>>>> +#include <drm/drm_irq.h>
>>>>>  #include <drm/drm_managed.h>
>>>>>  #include <drm/drm_mode_object.h>
>>>>>  #include <drm/drm_print.h>
>>>>> @@ -678,6 +679,28 @@ static int devm_drm_dev_init(struct device *parent,
>>>>>  	return ret;
>>>>>  }
>>>>>  
>>>>> +static void devm_drm_dev_irq_uninstall(void *data)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +	drm_irq_uninstall(data);
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +int devm_drm_irq_install(struct device *parent,
>>>>> +			 struct drm_device *dev, int irq)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +	int ret;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	ret = drm_irq_install(dev, irq);
>>>>> +	if (ret)
>>>>> +		return ret;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	ret = devm_add_action(parent, devm_drm_dev_irq_uninstall, dev);
>>>>> +	if (ret)
>>>>> +		devm_drm_dev_irq_uninstall(dev);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	return ret;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(devm_drm_irq_install);
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>> Shouldn't we tie the IRQ to the drm device (so with drmm_add_action)
>>>> instead of tying it to the underlying device?
>>>
>>> If the HW device goes away, there won't be any more interrupts. So it's
>>> similar to devm_ functions for I/O memory. Why would you use the drmm_
>>> interface?
>>
>> drm_irq_install/uninstall do more that just calling request_irq and
>> free_irq though, they will also run (among other things) the irq-related
>> hooks in the drm driver (irq_preinstall, irq_postinstall irq_uninstall)
>> and wake anything waiting for a vblank to occur, so we need the DRM
>> device and driver to still be around when we run drm_irq_uninstall.
>> That's why (I assume) you have to pass the drm_device as an argument and
>> not simply the device.
> 
> drm_device is guaranteed to outlive devm_, plus the hooks are meant to
> shut down hw. hw isn't around anymore when we do drmm_ cleanup, at least
> not in full generality.
> 
>> This probably works in most case since you would allocate the drm_device
>> with devm_drm_dev_alloc, and then run drm_irq_install, so in the undoing
>> phase you would have first drm_irq_uninstall to run, and everything is
>> fine.
>>
>> However, if one doesn't use devm_drm_dev_alloc but would use
>> devm_drm_irq_install, you would have first remove being called that
>> would free the drm device, and then drm_irq_uninstall which will use a
>> free'd pointer.
> 
> Don't do that, it's broken :-)

Umm, I just saw that hibmc doesn't use devm_drm_dev_alloc. So maybe we
have to convert it first before using the managed irq function. OTOH
converting it is a good idea in any case, so why not. :)

Best regards
Thomas

> 
>> So yeah, even though the interrupt line itself is tied to the device,
>> all the logic we have around the interrupt that is dealt with in
>> drm_irq_install is really tied to the drm_device. And since we tie the
>> life of drm_device to its underlying device already (either implicitly
>> through devm_drm_dev_alloc, or explictly through manual allocation in
>> probe and free in remove) we can't end up in a situation where the
>> drm_device outlives its device.
> 
> Most drivers get their drm_device lifetime completely wrong. That's why I
> typed drmm_ stuff. So this isn't a surprise at all, but it might motiveate
> a bunch more people to fix this up correctly.
> 
> Also, these drm_irq functions are 100% optional helpers (should maybe
> rename them to make this clearer) for modern drivers. They're only built
> in for DRIVER_LEGACY, because hysterical raisins.
> -Daniel
> 

-- 
Thomas Zimmermann
Graphics Driver Developer
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH
Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
(HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg)
Geschäftsführer: Felix Imendörffer

Attachment: OpenPGP_0x680DC11D530B7A23.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature