Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:7 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:7;
Date:   Tue, 28 Nov 2023 18:08:58 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com>, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] gpio: use a mutex to protect the list of GPIO devices
Message-ID: <ZWYQmpe7UxnJW0_g@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <20231127193716.63143-1-brgl@bgdev.pl>
 <20231127193716.63143-2-brgl@bgdev.pl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231127193716.63143-2-brgl@bgdev.pl>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 08:37:16PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.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