Re: [PATCH] iio: light: cm32181: Fix PM support on system with 2 I2C resources

[Kai-Heng Feng]

Hi Hans,

On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 6:52 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 1/18/23 06:15, Kai-Heng Feng wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 11:29 AM Kai-Heng Feng
> > <kai.heng.feng@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Hans,
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 1:21 AM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> On 1/17/23 17:09, Kai-Heng Feng wrote:
> >>>> Commit c1e62062ff54 ("iio: light: cm32181: Handle CM3218 ACPI devices
> >>>> with 2 I2C resources") creates a second client for the actual I2C
> >>>> address, but the "struct device" passed to PM ops is the first client
> >>>> that can't talk to the sensor.
> >>>>
> >>>> That means the I2C transfers in both suspend and resume routines can
> >>>> fail and blocking the whole suspend process.
> >>>>
> >>>> Instead of using the first client for I2C transfer, store the cm32181
> >>>> private struct on both cases so the PM ops can get the correct I2C
> >>>> client to perfrom suspend and resume.
> >>>>
> >>>> Fixes: 68c1b3dd5c48 ("iio: light: cm32181: Add PM support")
> >>>> Tested-by: Wahaj <wahajaved@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>
> >>> Thank you for this fix. I had looking into this on my todo list,
> >>> since I have been seeing some bug reports about this too.
> >>>
> >>> One remark inline:
> >>>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>  drivers/iio/light/cm32181.c | 11 +++++++----
> >>>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/light/cm32181.c b/drivers/iio/light/cm32181.c
> >>>> index 001055d097509..0f319c891353c 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/iio/light/cm32181.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/iio/light/cm32181.c
> >>>> @@ -440,6 +440,8 @@ static int cm32181_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
> >>>>       if (!indio_dev)
> >>>>               return -ENOMEM;
> >>>>
> >>>> +     i2c_set_clientdata(client, indio_dev);
> >>>> +
> >>>
> >>> Why move this up, the suspend/resume callbacks cannot run until
> >>> probe() completes, so no need for this change.
> >>
> >> The intention is to save indio_dev as drvdata in the first (i.e.
> >> original) i2c_client's dev.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>       /*
> >>>>        * Some ACPI systems list 2 I2C resources for the CM3218 sensor, the
> >>>>        * SMBus Alert Response Address (ARA, 0x0c) and the actual I2C address.
> >>>> @@ -458,9 +460,9 @@ static int cm32181_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
> >>>>               client = i2c_acpi_new_device(dev, 1, &board_info);
> >>>>               if (IS_ERR(client))
> >>>>                       return PTR_ERR(client);
> >>>> -     }
> >>>>
> >>>> -     i2c_set_clientdata(client, indio_dev);
> >>>> +             i2c_set_clientdata(client, indio_dev);
> >>>> +     }
> >>>
> >>> And moving it inside the if block here (instead of just dropping it)
> >>> is also weird. I guess you meant to just delete it since you moved it up.
> >>
> >> Doesn't i2c_acpi_new_device() creates a new i2c_client (and its dev embedded)?
> >>
> >> So the intention is to save indio_dev for the second (ARA case) i2c_client too.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>       cm32181 = iio_priv(indio_dev);
> >>>>       cm32181->client = client;
> >>>
> >>> Also note that the ->client used in suspend/resume now is not set until
> >>> here, so moving the i2c_set_clientdata() up really does not do anything.
> >>>
> >>> I beleive it would be best to just these 2 hunks from the patch and
> >>> only keep the changes to the suspend/resume callbacks.
> >>
> >> Yes, it seems like those 2 hunks are not necessary. Let me send a new patch.
> >
> >         if (ACPI_HANDLE(dev) && client->addr == SMBUS_ALERT_RESPONSE_ADDRESS) {
> >                 ...
> >                 client = i2c_acpi_new_device(dev, 1, &board_info);
> >                 ...
> >         }
> >         i2c_set_clientdata(client, indio_dev);
> >
> > It means the indio_dev is only assigned to the new i2c_client->dev's
> > drvdata, the original dev's drvdata remains NULL.
> > So we need to assign it before the original client gets replaced by
> > the new one, otherwise we can't get cm32181 in PM ops.
>
> You are right, my bad. The original code has a bug where it indeed was
> making the i2c_set_clientdata() call on the wrong client device.
>
> So the i2c_set_clientdata() call needs to be moved up.
>
> There is no need to also call i2c_set_clientdata() on the dummy
> i2c-client though. That one does not have a driver attached.

Sure, will update this in v2.

>
> The suspend/resume callbacks are made on the original client-dev,
> not on the one of the dummy-client (which is the one which we
> actually use to communicate).
>
> >> But I do wonder what happens for the removing case? Will the second
> >> i2c_client leak?
>
> Yes it does, good point. That should probably also be fixed, but
> that needs to be a different / second patch.

Agree, thanks for the input.

Kai-Heng

>
> Regards,
>
> Hans
>
>
>
> >>>> @@ -490,7 +492,8 @@ static int cm32181_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
> >>>>
> >>>>  static int cm32181_suspend(struct device *dev)
> >>>>  {
> >>>> -     struct i2c_client *client = to_i2c_client(dev);
> >>>> +     struct cm32181_chip *cm32181 = iio_priv(dev_get_drvdata(dev));
> >>>> +     struct i2c_client *client = cm32181->client;
> >>>>
> >>>>       return i2c_smbus_write_word_data(client, CM32181_REG_ADDR_CMD,
> >>>>                                        CM32181_CMD_ALS_DISABLE);
> >>>> @@ -498,8 +501,8 @@ static int cm32181_suspend(struct device *dev)
> >>>>
> >>>>  static int cm32181_resume(struct device *dev)
> >>>>  {
> >>>> -     struct i2c_client *client = to_i2c_client(dev);
> >>>>       struct cm32181_chip *cm32181 = iio_priv(dev_get_drvdata(dev));
> >>>> +     struct i2c_client *client = cm32181->client;
> >>>>
> >>>>       return i2c_smbus_write_word_data(client, CM32181_REG_ADDR_CMD,
> >>>>                                        cm32181->conf_regs[CM32181_REG_ADDR_CMD]);
> >>>
> >
>