Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.31 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.31;
Date:   Thu, 14 Dec 2023 23:08:05 +0800
From:   Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com>
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org,
        linus.walleij@linaro.org, andy@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] gpiolib: cdev: relocate debounce_period_us from
 struct gpio_desc
Message-ID: <ZXsaVSskFOXcSLZG@rigel>
References: <20231214095814.132400-1-warthog618@gmail.com>
 <20231214095814.132400-3-warthog618@gmail.com>
 <CAMRc=MeoeOgZaz6xT+ScVjOemVovrEHvQDBvqsN1pD9U3haE_A@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZXsU_UN6g0Fdj4qx@rigel>
 <CAMRc=Mf4FpzLqQZ5phRZLbTsGCfdYaELZHnLM13vnWnkAkLXkQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAMRc=Mf4FpzLqQZ5phRZLbTsGCfdYaELZHnLM13vnWnkAkLXkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 03:56:37PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 3:45 PM Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 03:29:28PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 10:58 AM Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * Used to populate gpio_v2_line_info with cdev specific fields not contained
> > > > + * in the struct gpio_desc.
> > > > + * A line is determined to contain supplemental information by
> > > > + * line_is_supplemental().
> > > > + */
> > > > +static struct {
> > > > +       /* a rbtree of the struct lines containing the supplemental info */
> > > > +       struct rb_root tree;
> > > > +       /* covers tree */
> > > > +       spinlock_t lock;
> > >
> > > Looks like this is never taken from atomic context? Can this be a mutex instead?
> > >
> >
> > Correct, only from thread context.
> >
> > Can be a mutex, but it only covers tree lookups which should be quick
> > as the tree is kept minimal, and I wouldn't expect it to ever get to the
> > mutex slowpath, so a spinlock seemed more appropriate.
> >
>
> Fair enough.
>
> Bart
>

While I think of it, what tree should I be basing on?
These patches are based on v6.7-rc5, and I'm not aware of any other
changes they may contend with, but best to be on the right tree to be
sure.

Cheers,
Kent.