[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZFjpqwOo3DxnWahM@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2023 15:23:07 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Vaittinen, Matti" <Matti.Vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>
Cc: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Shreeya Patel <shreeya.patel@...labora.com>,
Zhigang Shi <Zhigang.Shi@...eon.com>,
Paul Gazzillo <paul@...zz.com>,
Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@...labora.com>,
"linux-iio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] iio: light: ROHM BU27008 color sensor
On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 04:56:47AM +0000, Vaittinen, Matti wrote:
> On 5/4/23 17:33, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 12:50:14PM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
...
> >> +config ROHM_BU27008
> >> + tristate "ROHM BU27008 color (RGB+C/IR) sensor"
> >> + depends on I2C
> >> + select REGMAP_I2C
> >> + select IIO_GTS_HELPER
> >> + help
> >> + Enable support for the ROHM BU27008 color sensor.
> >> + The ROHM BU27008 is a sensor with 5 photodiodes (red, green,
> >> + blue, clear and IR) with four configurable channels. Red and
> >> + green being always available and two out of the rest three
> >> + (blue, clear, IR) can be selected to be simultaneously measured.
> >> + Typical application is adjusting LCD backlight of TVs,
> >> + mobile phones and tablet PCs.
> >
> > Module name?
>
> We have discussed this several times already.
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/10c4663b-dd65-a545-786d-10aed6e6e5e9@fi.rohmeurope.com/
>
> Module name is completely irrelevant when selecting a kernel configuration.
This option is also selectable by user.
...
> > Do you need regmap lock? If so, why (since you have mutex)?
>
> I believe you know that regmap uses a default lock when no external lock
> is given. So, I assume you mean that maybe we could set
> 'disable_locking' for the regmap here.
Correct.
> It's nice to be occasionally pushed to think "out of the box". And yes,
> disabling regmap lock is really out of my "normal box" :)
>
> I didn't go through all of the code yet, but I think pretty much all of
> the sequences which end up to register writes are indeed protected by
> the mutex. (Well, probe is not but it is expected to only update one bit
> while rest of the register should stay fixed).
>
> It may be we could live without regmap_lock when driver is in it's
> current state, but I am not convinced the performance improvement is
> worth the risk. Having regmap unprotected is not common, and it is also
> not easy to spot when making changes to the driver. In my opinion it is
> a bit like asking for a nose-bleed unless there is really heavy reasons
> to drop the lock... In this case, having the regmap_lock (which is
> pretty much never locked because we have the mutex as you said) is
> probably not a penalty that matters.
Basically you try to justify a hidden mine field in case somebody will think
"oh, we are protected by regmap lock, so why to bother call mutex_lock()" and
at the end it become a subtle bugs in the code. With disable_locking = true
I can see that code author _carefully thought through_ the locking schema and
understands the hardware and the code.
P.S. I'm wondering why your lines of text have a single trailing whitespace
but the last line.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists