[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <221527ad-aad4-5bfc-29da-d56880357c11@metafoo.de>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 14:34:50 +0100
From: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>
To: SIMRAN SINGHAL <singhalsimran0@...il.com>
Cc: Michael Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
Pete Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
outreachy-kernel <outreachy-kernel@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: iio: ade7753: replace mlock with driver private
lock
On 03/13/2017 01:33 PM, SIMRAN SINGHAL wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de> wrote:
>> On 03/12/2017 02:32 PM, simran singhal wrote:
>>> The IIO subsystem is redefining iio_dev->mlock to be used by
>>> the IIO core only for protecting device operating mode changes.
>>> ie. Changes between INDIO_DIRECT_MODE, INDIO_BUFFER_* modes.
>>>
>>> In this driver, mlock was being used to protect hardware state
>>> changes. Replace it with a lock in the devices global data.
>>>
>>> Fix some coding style issues related to white space also.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: simran singhal <singhalsimran0@...il.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c | 14 ++++++++------
>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c b/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c
>>> index dfd8b71..ca99d82 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c
>>> @@ -81,12 +81,14 @@
>>> * @tx: transmit buffer
>>> * @rx: receive buffer
>>> * @buf_lock: mutex to protect tx and rx
>>> + * @lock: protect sensor state
>>
>> It might make sense to reuse the existing lock which currently protects the
>> read/write functions. You can do this by introducing a variant of
>> ade7753_spi_{read,write}_reg_16() that does not take a lock and use these to
>> implement the read-modify-write cycle in a protected section.
>>
>> Looking through the driver there seem to be other places as well that do
>> read-modify-write that should be protected by a lock, but currently are not.
>> This might be a good task.
>>
>
> Are you trying to say that their is no need of introducing "lock",
> I can using "buf_lock" only.
Yes, there should be no need for two locks. But you need to slightly
refactor the code to avoid taking the same lock nested.
>
> Thanks!
>
>>> **/
>>> struct ade7753_state {
>>> - struct spi_device *us;
>>> - struct mutex buf_lock;
>>> - u8 tx[ADE7753_MAX_TX] ____cacheline_aligned;
>>> - u8 rx[ADE7753_MAX_RX];
>>> + struct spi_device *us;
>>> + struct mutex buf_lock;
>>> + struct mutex lock; /* protect sensor state */
>>> + u8 tx[ADE7753_MAX_TX] ____cacheline_aligned;
>>> + u8 rx[ADE7753_MAX_RX];
>>> };
>>>
>>> static int ade7753_spi_write_reg_8(struct device *dev,
>>> @@ -484,7 +486,7 @@ static ssize_t ade7753_write_frequency(struct device *dev,
>>> if (!val)
>>> return -EINVAL;
>>>
>>> - mutex_lock(&indio_dev->mlock);
>>> + mutex_lock(&st->lock);
>>>
>>> t = 27900 / val;
>>> if (t > 0)
>>> @@ -505,7 +507,7 @@ static ssize_t ade7753_write_frequency(struct device *dev,
>>> ret = ade7753_spi_write_reg_16(dev, ADE7753_MODE, reg);
>>>
>>> out:
>>> - mutex_unlock(&indio_dev->mlock);
>>> + mutex_unlock(&st->lock);
>>>
>>> return ret ? ret : len;
>>> }
>>>
>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists