[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZK1PfXsUJipjcCH6@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 15:47:57 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@...labora.com>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Cristian Ciocaltea <cristian.ciocaltea@...labora.com>,
Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@...wei.com>,
Amit Kumar Mahapatra via Alsa-devel
<alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>,
Tharun Kumar P <tharunkumar.pasumarthi@...rochip.com>,
Vijaya Krishna Nivarthi <quic_vnivarth@...cinc.com>,
Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Sanjay R Mehta <sanju.mehta@....com>,
Radu Pirea <radu_nicolae.pirea@....ro>,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...rochip.com>,
Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org>,
Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>,
Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>,
Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@...libre.com>,
Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
<angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Orson Zhai <orsonzhai@...il.com>,
Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Chunyan Zhang <zhang.lyra@...il.com>,
Alain Volmat <alain.volmat@...s.st.com>,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/15] spi: Remove code duplication in
spi_add_device_locked()
On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 02:01:33PM +0200, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 02:06:20PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 06:16:22PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 06:49:22PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
...
> > > > - struct device *dev = ctlr->dev.parent;
> > > > -
> > > > - /* Chipselects are numbered 0..max; validate. */
> > > > - if (spi_get_chipselect(spi, 0) >= ctlr->num_chipselect) {
> > > > - dev_err(dev, "cs%d >= max %d\n", spi_get_chipselect(spi, 0),
> > > > - ctlr->num_chipselect);
> > > > - return -EINVAL;
> > > > - }
> > > > -
> > > > - /* Set the bus ID string */
> > > > - spi_dev_set_name(spi);
> > >
> > > I see that this is duplicating spi_add_device() (and we really could do
> > > better with code sharing there I think) but I can't immediately see
> > > where the duplication that's intended to be elimiated is here - where
> > > else in the one call path that spi_add_device_locked() has would we do
> > > the above? Based on the changelog I was expecting to see some
> > > duplicated code in the function itself.
> >
> > Oh, by some reason Sebastian wasn't in this rather long Cc list.
> > Added him.
> >
> > Reading again I don't see any useful explanation why that piece of code has to
> > be duplicated among these two functions. It's 100% a copy.
> >
> > Sebastian, can you shed some light here?
>
> The patch in this thread is obviously wrong. It results in the
> checks never beeing called for spi_add_device_locked(). The copy is
> in spi_add_device() and those two are not calling into each other.
Ah, now I see, I missed __ in the name.
Thank you for opening my eyes!
> But it should be fine to move the code to the start of
> __spi_add_device(), which allows removing the duplication. In that
> case the code will be run with the add_lock held, which is probably
> what I was worried about two years ago. Looking at it again, the
> lock is held anyways in case of spi_add_device_locked().
Right, I will re-do that.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists