Re: [PATCH RESEND] Do not mark ACPI devices as irq safe

[Breno Leitao]

Hello Andy,

On Fri, Aug 09, 2024 at 02:03:27PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 2:57 AM Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 05:14:46AM GMT, Breno Leitao wrote:

> > > The problem arises because during __pm_runtime_resume(), the spinlock
> > > &dev->power.lock is acquired before rpm_resume() is called. Later,
> > > rpm_resume() invokes acpi_subsys_runtime_resume(), which relies on
> > > mutexes, triggering the error.
> > >
> > > To address this issue, devices on ACPI are now marked as not IRQ-safe,
> > > considering the dependency of acpi_subsys_runtime_resume() on mutexes.
> 
> This is a step in the right direction

Thanks

> but somewhere in the replies
> here I would like to hear about roadmap to get rid of the
> pm_runtime_irq_safe() in all Tegra related code.

Agree, that seems the right way to go, but this is a question to
maintainers, Laxman and Dmitry.

By the way, looking at lore, I found that the last email from Laxman is
from 2022. And Dmitry seems to be using a different email!? Let me copy
the Dmitry's other email (dmitry.osipenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) here.

> > > +     if (!IS_VI(i2c_dev) && !ACPI_HANDLE(i2c_dev->dev))
> >
> > looks good to me, can I have an ack from Andy here?
> 
> I prefer to see something like
> is_acpi_node() / is_acpi_device_node() / is_acpi_data_node() /
> has_acpi_companion()
> instead depending on the actual ACPI representation of the device.
> 
> Otherwise no objections.
> Please, Cc me (andy@xxxxxxxxxx) for the next version.

Thanks for the feedback, I agree that leveraging the functions about
should be better. What about something as:

Author: Breno Leitao <leitao@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date:   Thu Jun 6 06:27:07 2024 -0700

    Do not mark ACPI devices as irq safe
    
    On ACPI machines, the tegra i2c module encounters an issue due to a
    mutex being called inside a spinlock. This leads to the following bug:
    
            BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/locking/mutex.c:585
            in_atomic(): 0, irqs_disabled(): 1, non_block: 0, pid: 1282, name: kssif0010
            preempt_count: 0, expected: 0
            RCU nest depth: 0, expected: 0
            irq event stamp: 0
    
            Call trace:
            __might_sleep
            __mutex_lock_common
            mutex_lock_nested
            acpi_subsys_runtime_resume
            rpm_resume
            tegra_i2c_xfer
    
    The problem arises because during __pm_runtime_resume(), the spinlock
    &dev->power.lock is acquired before rpm_resume() is called. Later,
    rpm_resume() invokes acpi_subsys_runtime_resume(), which relies on
    mutexes, triggering the error.
    
    To address this issue, devices on ACPI are now marked as not IRQ-safe,
    considering the dependency of acpi_subsys_runtime_resume() on mutexes.
    
    Co-developed-by: Michael van der Westhuizen <rmikey@xxxxxxxx>
    Signed-off-by: Michael van der Westhuizen <rmikey@xxxxxxxx>
    Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <leitao@xxxxxxxxxx>

diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-tegra.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-tegra.c
index 85b31edc558d..1df5b4204142 100644
--- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-tegra.c
+++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-tegra.c
@@ -1802,9 +1802,9 @@ static int tegra_i2c_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	 * domain.
 	 *
 	 * VI I2C device shouldn't be marked as IRQ-safe because VI I2C won't
-	 * be used for atomic transfers.
+	 * be used for atomic transfers. ACPI device is not IRQ safe also.
 	 */
-	if (!IS_VI(i2c_dev))
+	if (!IS_VI(i2c_dev) && !has_acpi_companion(i2c_dev->dev))
 		pm_runtime_irq_safe(i2c_dev->dev);
 
 	pm_runtime_enable(i2c_dev->dev);