Re: [PATCH 2/2] soundwire: intel_auxdevice: Don't disable IRQs before removing children

[Pierre-Louis Bossart]

>>> It would appear the reason for the disabling of the IRQs is that
>>> the IRQ handler iterates through a linked list of all the links,
>>> once a link is removed the memory pointed at by this linked list
>>> is freed, but not removed from the linked_list. 
>>
>> That wasn't the reason, even if you have a single link we all thought it
>> made more sense to disable peripheral interrupts on the host before
>> calling sdw_bus_master_delete()
> 
> What was the reason for deciding to do that, that is not in itself
> a reason? A drivers remove callback should be able to access
> registers on the device. The host here requires interrupts to
> do so. This was the only functional reason in the code I could
> find that things were done in this order.

like I said it was thought to be simpler this way, we never thought
about the need to do anything in remove().
IOW this is a missed requirement that led to a simple solution, not a
deliberate decision to cripple the remove() step.

>>> --- a/drivers/soundwire/intel_auxdevice.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/soundwire/intel_auxdevice.c
>>> @@ -508,9 +508,12 @@ static void intel_link_remove(struct auxiliary_device *auxdev)
>>>  	if (!bus->prop.hw_disabled) {
>>>  		sdw_intel_debugfs_exit(sdw);
>>>  		cancel_delayed_work_sync(&cdns->attach_dwork);
>>> -		sdw_cdns_enable_interrupt(cdns, false);
>>>  	}
>>> +
>>>  	sdw_bus_master_delete(bus);
>>> +
>>> +	if (!bus->prop.hw_disabled)
>>> +		sdw_cdns_enable_interrupt(cdns, false);
>>>  }
>>
>> Sorry, that sequence looks really weird to me.
>>
>> See the code in
>>
>> void sdw_bus_master_delete(struct sdw_bus *bus)
>> {
>> 	device_for_each_child(bus->dev, NULL, sdw_delete_slave);
>>
>> 	sdw_irq_delete(bus);
>>
>> 	sdw_master_device_del(bus);
>>
>> After doing all this, one would mask the interrupts on the host side with
>>
>> 	if (!bus->prop.hw_disabled)
>> 		sdw_cdns_enable_interrupt(cdns, false);
>>
>> but that host is long gone.
>>
>> Does this even work?
>>
>> The last sdw_cdns_enable_interrupt(cdns, false) looks either very racy
>> or useless, no?
> 
> I mean it definitely works and fixes the problems on driver
> remove. I will check to see if the call is redundant at this
> stage, or if there are any potential dangers I am missing.

ok

>>> diff --git a/include/linux/soundwire/sdw_intel.h b/include/linux/soundwire/sdw_intel.h
>>> index 9710f2dc04e29..7495d35ed2fc3 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/soundwire/sdw_intel.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/soundwire/sdw_intel.h
>>> @@ -307,6 +307,7 @@ struct sdw_intel_ctx {
>>>  	acpi_handle handle;
>>>  	struct sdw_intel_link_dev **ldev;
>>>  	struct list_head link_list;
>>> +	struct mutex link_lock; /* lock protecting link_list */
>>>  	struct mutex shim_lock; /* lock for access to shared SHIM registers */
>>
>> IIRC shim_lock was used to prevent access to common registers shared
>> between links. How many locks do we need?
> 
> I mean we could reuse the lock but in my experience locks having
> a clearly defined purpose is less error prone, than having catch
> all locks. The shim lock claims to protect the SHIM registers,
> this one protects the list of links. But if you feel strongly I
> am happy to try reuse the shim lock for this?

I am not asking for you to share, just that we need to have a discussion
on whether this new lock is redundant or not, and wording that describes
why using existing locks isn't desired/needed.

this shim_lock is a protection for very low-level access to registers,
and completely tied to the way the IP registers were clustered together,
it's indeed a different conceptual level you're after. So even if there
is some redundancy or overlap, it's probably simpler to use a different
lock for different things,

> Ultimately, I am not super attached to this way of solving the
> problem but we do need to come up with some solution to allow
> drivers to access their device in driver remove. This causes
> devices to take 1-2 minutes to remove the driver and fills the log
> with loads of error messages. I am more than happy to entertain
> other ways of making that happen if you have ideas you prefer?

I don't have any objections with the requirement to let the codec do
whatever it needs on remove(), this was a miss in the design and it
needs to be addressed.
I am just nervous about the interrupt part and possible race conditions.
Maybe the last stage of the remove() should be to mask all interrupts on
the codec side with a common helper shared by all codec drivers?

BTW we did have scripts to remove/insert in loops to try and find
issues, not sure if you're aware of them and if they still work, see:

https://github.com/thesofproject/sof-test/blob/main/tools/kmod/