Hi,
On 13/06/19 1:22 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2019-06-13 06:57, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> On 13/06/19 4:20 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> [I know this has already been merged upstream, but I only just
>>> now noticed the code and went to the archives to find the
>>> originating mail. I hope I managed to set in-reply-to correctly...]
>>>
>>> The mux handling is problematic and does not follow the rules.
>>> It needs to be fixed, or you may face deadlocks. See below.
>>>
>>> On 2019-04-05 11:08, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
>>>> Add a new SERDES driver for TI's AM654x SoC which configures
>>>> the SERDES only for PCIe. Support fo USB3 will be added later.
>>>>
>>>> SERDES in am654x has three input clocks (left input, externel reference
>>>> clock and right input) and two output clocks (left output and right
>>>> output) in addition to a PLL mux clock which the SERDES uses for Clock
>>>> Multiplier Unit (CMU refclock).
>>>>
>>>> The PLL mux clock can select from one of the three input clocks.
>>>> The right output can select between left input and external reference
>>>> clock while the left output can select between the right input and
>>>> external reference clock.
>>>>
>>>> The driver has support to select PLL mux and left/right output mux as
>>>> specified in device tree.
>>>>
>>>> [rog...@ti.com: Fix boot lockup caused by accessing a structure member
>>>> (hw->init) allocated in stack of probe() and accessed in get_parent]
>>>> [rog...@ti.com: Fix "Failed to find the parent" warnings]
>>>> Signed-off-by: Roger Quadros <rog...@ti.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kis...@ti.com>
>
> *snip*
>
>>>> +static void serdes_am654_release(struct phy *x)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct serdes_am654 *phy = phy_get_drvdata(x);
>>>> +
>>>> + phy->type = PHY_NONE;
>>>> + phy->busy = false;
>>>> + mux_control_deselect(phy->control);
>>>
>>> Here you unconditionally deselect the mux, and that seems
>>> dangerous. Are you *sure* that ->release may not be called
>>> without a successful xlate call?
>>
>> Yeah, without a successful xlate(), the consumer will never get a reference
>> to
>> the PHY and the ->release() is invoked only from phy_put() which needs a
>> reference to the PHY.
>
> Yes, I thought it might be ok, but good that you can confirm it.
>
>>> I'm not 100% sure of that, but I have not looked at the phy
>>> code before today, so it may very well be the case that this
>>> is safe...
>>>
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +struct phy *serdes_am654_xlate(struct device *dev, struct of_phandle_args
>>>> + *args)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct serdes_am654 *am654_phy;
>>>> + struct phy *phy;
>>>> + int ret;
>>>> +
>>>> + phy = of_phy_simple_xlate(dev, args);
>>>> + if (IS_ERR(phy))
>>>> + return phy;
>>>> +
>>>> + am654_phy = phy_get_drvdata(phy);
>>>> + if (am654_phy->busy)
>>>> + return ERR_PTR(-EBUSY);
>>>> +
>>>> + ret = mux_control_select(am654_phy->control, args->args[1]);
>>>> + if (ret) {
>>>> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to select SERDES Lane Function\n");
>>>> + return ERR_PTR(ret);
>>>> + }
>>>
>>> *However*
>>>
>>> Here you select the mux as the last action, good, but, a mux must
>>> be handled with that same care as a locking primitive, i.e.
>>> successful selects must be perfectly balanced with deselects. I
>>> see no guarantee of that here, since there are other failures
>>> possible after the xlate call. So, being last in the function
>>> does not really help. If I read the code correctly, the
>>> phy core may fail if try_module_get fails in phy_get(). If that
>>> ever happens, a successful call to mux_control_select is simply
>>> forgotten, and the mux will be locked indefinitely.
>>
>> Good catch. While adding ->release() ops which is only invoked from phy_put,
>> perhaps this was missed. Ideally it should be invoked from other places where
>> there is a failure after phy_get.
>>>
>>> am654_phy->busy will also be set indefinitely, so you will get
>>> -EBUSY and not a hard deadlock. At least here, but if the now
>>> locked mux control happens to also control some other muxes
>>> (probably unlikely, but if), then their consumers will potentially
>>> deadlock hard. But that's just after a cursory reading, so I may
>>> completely miss something...
>>
>> The ->busy here should prevent two consumers trying to control the same mux.
>
> Aha, you do not seem to be aware that one mux controller can
> have multiple independent consumers (a mux is not like a gpio
> or a pwm in that aspect). What I'm talking about is a single
> mux control that controls several parallel muxes, each with its
> own consumer. In the specific case you are targeting, that may
> not be possible due to some hardware reason or something, but
> looking at just this driver *it* cannot know that the mux will
> be available just because it has a local ->busy flag.
I think this should be okay atleast for my case.
My dt node will looks something like this
serdes_mux: mux-controller {
compatible = "mmio-mux";
#mux-control-cells = <1>;
mux-reg-masks = <0x4080 0x3>, /* SERDES0 lane select */
<0x4090 0x3>; /* SERDES1 lane select */
}
Here SERDES lane0 is muxed between PCIe0 Lane0, ICSS2 SGMII Lane0.
The consumers of SERDES0 (in this case PCIe and ICSS), will have to invoke
->xlate of AM654 SERDES driver to select the mux and ->busy should be able to
tell whether it is available.
Only when multiple drivers try to get devm_mux_control_get and use
mux_control_select, the problem might occur. For my case, only SERDES is the
consumer of mux.
>
> For this case, I get the feeling that the mux may be selected for
> a very long time, right? It is never about selecting the mux,
> doing something for x milli/microseconds or so and then deselecting
> the mux. Perhaps the mux will typically sit in the same state for
> the entire uptime of the machine?
Yes right. It'll be for the entire up time. Well, with dt overlay this could
change.
>
> If you have these very long access patterns, the sharing capability
> of the mux controls are pretty much useless, and I have
> contemplating a mux mode to support this case. I.e. where you
> lock/unlock the mux control once at probe/release (or similar),
> and then basically instead of a shared mux get an exclusive mux
> where the consumer is responsible for not making parallel accesses.
> In other words, just like a gpio or a pwm.
Yes, having an exclusive mux will make sure no one can accidentally modify the
mux.
>
> The problem is that I then need a definition of "long" and "short"
> accesses, and I split the mux universe in two...
Are you trying to make sure there is no deadlock when two different consumers
try to control a shared mux?
Thanks
Kishon
