* H. Nikolaus Schaller <h...@goldelico.com> [180619 06:42]: > Hi Tony, > > > Am 19.06.2018 um 08:11 schrieb Tony Lindgren <t...@atomide.com>: > > > > * H. Nikolaus Schaller <h...@goldelico.com> [180619 04:54]: > >>>> I had seen the call sequence > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> w/o any lock inside. > > > > So the sequence above has mutex added around adding the pin > > controller specific functions and groups by the patch series > > I posted for both pcs_parse_bits_in_pinctrl_entry() and > > pcs_parse_one_pinctrl_entry(). So I think the above should > > be fixed now. But please confirm to make sure I'm not mistaken. > > Ah, now I see. > > My dump_stack() added to pinctrl_generic_add_group() reported > > [ 6.155487] Hardware name: Generic OMAP36xx (Flattened Device Tree) > [ 6.162048] [<c01106ec>] (unwind_backtrace) from [<c010c058>] > (show_stack+0x10/0x14) > [ 6.170166] [<c010c058>] (show_stack) from [<c074bc28>] > (dump_stack+0x7c/0x9c) > [ 6.177734] [<c074bc28>] (dump_stack) from [<c042bbec>] > (pinctrl_generic_add_group+0x48/0x90) > [ 6.186614] [<c042bbec>] (pinctrl_generic_add_group) from [<c043203c>] > (pcs_dt_node_to_map+0x4b0/0x81c) > [ 6.196441] [<c043203c>] (pcs_dt_node_to_map) from [<c042ffd4>] > (pinctrl_dt_to_map+0x1ec/0x2b8) > [ 6.205535] [<c042ffd4>] (pinctrl_dt_to_map) from [<c042d028>] > (create_pinctrl+0x58/0x2f8) > [ 6.214141] [<c042d028>] (create_pinctrl) from [<c042d388>] > (devm_pinctrl_get+0x2c/0x6c) > [ 6.222625] [<c042d388>] (devm_pinctrl_get) from [<c04f2e9c>] > (pinctrl_bind_pins+0x3c/0x138) > [ 6.231445] [<c04f2e9c>] (pinctrl_bind_pins) from [<c04d3eb8>] > (driver_probe_device+0xe8/0x318) > [ 6.240509] [<c04d3eb8>] (driver_probe_device) from [<c04d4168>] > (__driver_attach+0x80/0xa4) > [ 6.249328] [<c04d4168>] (__driver_attach) from [<c04d264c>] > (bus_for_each_dev+0x58/0x7c) > > Apparently I didn't notice that pcs_parse_*_pinctrl_entry() are called > inside pcs_dt_node_to_map() and are part of the call sequence. > > Hence your new mutex locks calls to pinctrl_generic_add_group() as > needed. > > Obviously, the compiler has optimized away the nested calls to static > functions and I had no previous experience with how the whole pinctrl code > works (learning by debugging :). > > So it looks sane and no need for further locks.
OK thanks for checking it. Regards, Tony
