Re: [PATCH] i2c: bcm-iproc: Fix bcm_iproc_i2c_isr deadlock issue
From: Ray Jui
Date: Mon Jun 26 2023 - 12:42:48 EST
Hi Chengfeng,
On 6/24/2023 12:36 PM, YE Chengfeng wrote:
> iproc_i2c_rd_reg and iproc_i2c_wr_reg are called from both
> interrupt context (e.g. bcm_iproc_i2c_isr) and process context
> (e.g. bcm_iproc_i2c_suspend). Therefore, interrupts should be
> disabled to avoid potential deadlock. To prevent this deadlock,
> use spin_lock_irqsave.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chengfeng Ye <cyeaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-bcm-iproc.c | 10 ++++++----
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-bcm-iproc.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-bcm-iproc.c
> index 85d8a6b04885..d02245e4db8c 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-bcm-iproc.c
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-bcm-iproc.c
> @@ -233,13 +233,14 @@ static inline u32 iproc_i2c_rd_reg(struct bcm_iproc_i2c_dev *iproc_i2c,
> u32 offset)
> {
> u32 val;
> + unsigned long flags;
>
> if (iproc_i2c->idm_base) {
> - spin_lock(&iproc_i2c->idm_lock);
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&iproc_i2c->idm_lock, flags);
> writel(iproc_i2c->ape_addr_mask,
> iproc_i2c->idm_base + IDM_CTRL_DIRECT_OFFSET);
> val = readl(iproc_i2c->base + offset);
> - spin_unlock(&iproc_i2c->idm_lock);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&iproc_i2c->idm_lock, flags);
> } else {
> val = readl(iproc_i2c->base + offset);
> }
> @@ -250,12 +251,13 @@ static inline u32 iproc_i2c_rd_reg(struct bcm_iproc_i2c_dev *iproc_i2c,
> static inline void iproc_i2c_wr_reg(struct bcm_iproc_i2c_dev *iproc_i2c,
> u32 offset, u32 val)
> {
> + unsigned long flags;
> if (iproc_i2c->idm_base) {
> - spin_lock(&iproc_i2c->idm_lock);
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&iproc_i2c->idm_lock, flags);
> writel(iproc_i2c->ape_addr_mask,
> iproc_i2c->idm_base + IDM_CTRL_DIRECT_OFFSET);
> writel(val, iproc_i2c->base + offset);
> - spin_unlock(&iproc_i2c->idm_lock);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&iproc_i2c->idm_lock, flags);
> } else {
> writel(val, iproc_i2c->base + offset);
> }
> --
> 2.17.1
This fix looks good to me. Thanks. Just curious, did you actually see a
race condition issue as a result of this, or the fix is done completely
based on the analysis of the code?
Acked-by: Ray Jui <ray.jui@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature