linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] io: accel: kxcjk1013: restore the range after resume.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <23ced5ac-b0a0-7d87-76d7-bdec0c3e0e15@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 4 Mar 2019 10:16:56 +0100
From:   Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
To:     "Chen, Hu" <hu1.chen@...el.com>
Cc:     bo.he@...el.com, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
        Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
        Stephan Gerhold <stephan@...hold.net>,
        linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] io: accel: kxcjk1013: restore the range after resume.

Hi,

On 04-03-19 08:05, Chen, Hu wrote:
> From: "he, bo" <bo.he@...el.com>
> 
> On some laptops, kxcjk1013 is powered off when system enters S3. We need
> restore the range regiter during resume. Otherwise, the sensor doesn't
> work properly after S3.
> 
> Signed-off-by: he, bo <bo.he@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Chen, Hu <hu1.chen@...el.com>

Thank you for the patch.

> ---
> Changes in v2:
> - Handle return value independently in resume callback.
> 
>   drivers/iio/accel/kxcjk-1013.c | 5 +++++
>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/accel/kxcjk-1013.c b/drivers/iio/accel/kxcjk-1013.c
> index 7096e577b23f..17837e26bcf2 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/accel/kxcjk-1013.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/accel/kxcjk-1013.c
> @@ -1437,6 +1437,11 @@ static int kxcjk1013_resume(struct device *dev)
>   
>   	mutex_lock(&data->mutex);
>   	ret = kxcjk1013_set_mode(data, OPERATION);
> +	if (ret < 0) {
> +		mutex_unlock(&data->mutex);
> +		return ret;
> +	}
> +	ret = kxcjk1013_set_range(data, data->range);
>   	mutex_unlock(&data->mutex);
>   
>   	return ret;


I'm not a fan of the extra unlock, IMHO it would be better to instead do:

  	mutex_lock(&data->mutex);
  	ret = kxcjk1013_set_mode(data, OPERATION);
	if (ret == 0)
		ret = kxcjk1013_set_range(data, data->range);
  	mutex_unlock(&data->mutex);

Regards,

Hans