Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200705133038.161547-1-mans0n@gorani.run> <CAMpxmJUxGq3_R7BRGv68ApeNC+g9PDm_kBd0r=8TjFSyTNxFWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHp75Vf4440V5Oh1SA5tjVgss134qGkx591ANDY3aQ+oecEzmw@mail.gmail.com> <15d8ae43-6905-b861-3b50-d1ba780edf2d@gorani.run>
In-Reply-To: <15d8ae43-6905-b861-3b50-d1ba780edf2d@gorani.run>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 7 Jul 2020 18:07:26 +0300
Message-ID: <CAHp75VeKUvy9tkoBq=axx9g-2_p3QUqffA1z2WmGO-Uu8oyHHA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] gpio: add GPO driver for PCA9570
To:     Sungbo Eo <mans0n@gorani.run>
Cc:     Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-gpio <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 5:03 PM Sungbo Eo <mans0n@gorani.run> wrote:
> On 20. 7. 6. =EC=98=A4=ED=9B=84 9:00, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

...

> But I don't really understand what mutex does here. The driver does not
> need consecutive commands, it only sends/receives only one byte at a
> time. And AFAIK each i2c_smbus function is already protected by a mutex.
> So what should be exactly inside the lock? Should we protect the output
> buffer as well? I'm not an expert on this so please enlighten me.

There are questions, answering them will give you a solution:
- Since we have two functions doing i2c communications, can they
clash? If so, does the i2c framework guarantee the serialisation?
- Since we have a shared resource (buf), can accessors clash? How do
we guarantee serialization?

--=20
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko