Hi, Andi.
These exported functions will be used in 77686 area only, so there is no
overlap locking.
Thanks.
On 2012-04-30 18:17, Andi Shyti wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> + mutex_lock(&max77686->iolock);
>> + ret = i2c_smbus_read_i2c_block_data(i2c, reg, count, buf);
>> + mutex_unlock(&max77686->iolock);
>
> Is it relly necessay to lock whenever you read/write from/to the
> i2c bus? Considering also that these are exported function,
> someone else may lock here before, so we can have a double
> locking on the same mutex.
>
> Andi
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
Hi,
On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 02:02:55PM +0900, [email protected] wrote:
> On 2012-04-30 18:17, Andi Shyti wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >> + mutex_lock(&max77686->iolock);
> >> + ret = i2c_smbus_read_i2c_block_data(i2c, reg, count, buf);
> >> + mutex_unlock(&max77686->iolock);
> >
> > Is it relly necessay to lock whenever you read/write from/to the
> > i2c bus? Considering also that these are exported function,
> > someone else may lock here before, so we can have a double
> > locking on the same mutex.
>
> These exported functions will be used in 77686 area only, so there is no
> overlap locking.
OK... I think this could be a reason more to not over-use mutexes :)
When you call i2c_smbus_* functions you are not accessing to any
private data, all the new data is allocated in a new area. The
smbus_xfer function should take care by himself that the global
data are locked correctly. If not, is not up to your driver to do
it.
If, instead, you are taking care about the concurrency in the
bus, this should be somehow managed by the chip itself.
In my opinion you are abusing a bit of mutex_lock/unlock.
Andi
P.S. copied and paste your reply at the bottom of my previous
comment.
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 02:02:55PM +0900, [email protected] wrote:
> > On 2012-04-30 18:17, Andi Shyti wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > >> + mutex_lock(&max77686->iolock);
> > >> + ret = i2c_smbus_read_i2c_block_data(i2c, reg, count, buf);
> > >> + mutex_unlock(&max77686->iolock);
> > >
> > > Is it relly necessay to lock whenever you read/write from/to the
> > > i2c bus? Considering also that these are exported function,
> > > someone else may lock here before, so we can have a double
> > > locking on the same mutex.
> >
> > These exported functions will be used in 77686 area only, so there is no
> > overlap locking.
>
> OK... I think this could be a reason more to not over-use mutexes :)
>
> When you call i2c_smbus_* functions you are not accessing to any
> private data, all the new data is allocated in a new area. The
> smbus_xfer function should take care by himself that the global
> data are locked correctly. If not, is not up to your driver to do
> it.
> If, instead, you are taking care about the concurrency in the
> bus, this should be somehow managed by the chip itself.
> In my opinion you are abusing a bit of mutex_lock/unlock.
>
> Andi
>
> P.S. copied and paste your reply at the bottom of my previous
> comment.
I expect MAX77686-PMIC(Regulator) driver will be using update_reg() heavily. That function requires mutexing such contexts to work correctly. You won't get correct update without a mutex as it will read a register and write to a register not atomically.
Without this mutex, updating a register (i.e., update the third bit to 1) can be disasterous with regulators.
Cheers!
MyungJoo.
>
>
>
--
MyungJoo Ham (?Ը???), PHD
System S/W Lab, S/W Platform Team, Software Center
Samsung Electronics
Cell: +82-10-6714-2858
????{.n?+???????+%?????ݶ??w??{.n?+????{??G?????{ay? ʇڙ?,j??f???h?????????z_??(?階?ݢj"???m??????G????????????&???~???iO???z??v?^?m???? ????????I?