[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZWYQmpe7UxnJW0_g@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2023 18:08:58 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] gpio: use a mutex to protect the list of GPIO devices
On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 08:37:16PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
>
> The global list of GPIO devices is never modified or accessed from
> atomic context so it's fine to protect it using a mutex. Add a new
> global lock dedicated to the gpio_devices list and use it whenever
> accessing or modifying it.
>
> While at it: fold the sysfs registering of existing devices into
> gpiolib.c and make gpio_devices static within its compilation unit.
...
> + scoped_guard(mutex, &gpio_devices_lock) {
This is a lot of churn with this because of switching to RAII.
Can the body be firstly moved to a helper?
> + /*
> + * TODO: this allocates a Linux GPIO number base in the global
> + * GPIO numberspace for this chip. In the long run we want to
> + * get *rid* of this numberspace and use only descriptors, but
> + * it may be a pipe dream. It will not happen before we get rid
> + * of the sysfs interface anyways.
> + */
...
> list_for_each_entry(gdev, &gpio_devices, list)
> + if (index-- == 0)
> return gdev;
I believe this is better with outer {}.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists