[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <918e0177-8e26-405c-93ad-8b0d2dfd3b3d@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 23:26:04 +0800
From: Troy Mitchell <troymitchell988@...il.com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Cc: troymitchell988@...il.com, Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>,
Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>, Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, imx@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Yongchao Jia <jyc0019@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] i2c: imx: use guard to take spinlock
On 2025/4/22 23:12, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 13:36:38 +0800
> Troy Mitchell <troymitchell988@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> Use guard to automatically release the lock after going out of scope
>> instead of calling it manually.
> Drive by review, but this changes behavior in a subtle way so we
> should have more commentary here...
Thanks for your review!
>
>> Co-developed-by: Yongchao Jia <jyc0019@...il.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Yongchao Jia <jyc0019@...il.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Troy Mitchell <troymitchell988@...il.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-imx.c | 22 ++++++++++------------
>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-imx.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-imx.c
>> index 9e5d454d8318..cb96a57df4a0 100644
>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-imx.c
>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-imx.c
>> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
>>
>> #include <linux/acpi.h>
>> #include <linux/clk.h>
>> +#include <linux/cleanup.h>
>> #include <linux/completion.h>
>> #include <linux/delay.h>
>> #include <linux/dma-mapping.h>
>>
>> @@ -1125,30 +1126,27 @@ static irqreturn_t i2c_imx_isr(int irq, void *dev_id)
>> {
>> struct imx_i2c_struct *i2c_imx = dev_id;
>> unsigned int ctl, status;
>> - unsigned long flags;
>>
>> - spin_lock_irqsave(&i2c_imx->slave_lock, flags);
>> + guard(spinlock_irqsave)(&i2c_imx->slave_lock);
>> +
>> status = imx_i2c_read_reg(i2c_imx, IMX_I2C_I2SR);
>> ctl = imx_i2c_read_reg(i2c_imx, IMX_I2C_I2CR);
>>
>> if (status & I2SR_IIF) {
>> i2c_imx_clear_irq(i2c_imx, I2SR_IIF);
>> +
>> if (i2c_imx->slave) {
>> if (!(ctl & I2CR_MSTA)) {
>> irqreturn_t ret;
>>
>> - ret = i2c_imx_slave_handle(i2c_imx,
>> - status, ctl);
>> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&i2c_imx->slave_lock,
>> - flags);
>> - return ret;
>> + return i2c_imx_slave_handle(i2c_imx,
>> + status, ctl);
>> }
>> i2c_imx_slave_finish_op(i2c_imx);
>> }
>> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&i2c_imx->slave_lock, flags);
> In this path the patch changes the lock release to occur after
> i2c_imx_master_isr(i2c_imx, status);
>
> That may well be safe; I have no idea! You should talk about that
> in the patch description if it is.
You're correct that this change slightly alters the lock release timing.
However, both i2c_imx_slave_handle() and i2c_imx_master_isr() can safely be
entered with the lock held — there's no requirement for the lock to be released
before calling them.
Using guard(spinlock_irqsave) simplifies the control flow by ensuring consistent
and automatic unlock, which improves readability without affecting correctness.
I'll update the commit message to clarify this.
>
>> +
>> return i2c_imx_master_isr(i2c_imx, status);
>> }
>> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&i2c_imx->slave_lock, flags);
>>
>> return IRQ_NONE;
>> }
--
Troy Mitchell
Powered by blists - more mailing lists