[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <D9UFCPLQHE5V.UH1BAK279S5M@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 16:21:27 -0300
From: "Kurt Borja" <kuurtb@...il.com>
To: "Antheas Kapenekakis" <lkml@...heas.dev>,
<platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: "Armin Wolf" <W_Armin@....de>, "Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@....net>, "Hans
de Goede" <hdegoede@...hat.com>, Ilpo Järvinen
<ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>, "Jean Delvare" <jdelvare@...e.com>,
"Guenter Roeck" <linux@...ck-us.net>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 02/10] platform/x86: msi-wmi-platform: Add unlocked
msi_wmi_platform_query
On Sun May 11, 2025 at 5:44 PM -03, Antheas Kapenekakis wrote:
> This driver requires to be able to handle transactions that perform
> multiple WMI actions at a time. Therefore, it needs to be able to
> lock the wmi_lock mutex for multiple operations.
>
> Add msi_wmi_platform_query_unlocked() to allow the caller to
> perform the WMI query without locking the wmi_lock mutex, by
> renaming the existing function and adding a new one that only
> locks the mutex.
>
> Signed-off-by: Antheas Kapenekakis <lkml@...heas.dev>
You only use msi_wmi_platform_query_unlocked() to protect the
fan_curve/AP state right?
If that's the case I think we don't need it. AFAIK sysfs reads/writes
are already synchronized/locked, and as I mentioned in Patch 10, I don't
think you need this variant in probe/remove either.
I'd like to hear more opinions on this though.
--
~ Kurt
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists