Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-203567-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2024 03:12:57 +0000
From: Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@kernel.org>
To: Ben Walsh <ben@jubnut.com>
Cc: Benson Leung <bleung@chromium.org>, Guenter Roeck <groeck@chromium.org>,
	"Dustin L. Howett" <dustin@howett.net>,
	Kieran Levin <ktl@frame.work>,
	Thomas =?iso-8859-1?Q?Wei=DFschuh?= <linux@weissschuh.net>,
	Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>,
	chrome-platform@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] platform/chrome: cros_ec_lpc: MEC access can use
 an AML mutex
Message-ID: <ZmEpOQmzFv7Quakq@google.com>
References: <20240605063351.14836-1-ben@jubnut.com>
 <20240605063351.14836-3-ben@jubnut.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240605063351.14836-3-ben@jubnut.com>

On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 07:33:48AM +0100, Ben Walsh wrote:
> @@ -93,7 +146,9 @@ int cros_ec_lpc_io_bytes_mec(enum cros_ec_lpc_mec_io_type io_type,
>  	else
>  		access = ACCESS_TYPE_LONG_AUTO_INCREMENT;
>  
> -	mutex_lock(&io_mutex);
> +	ret = cros_ec_lpc_mec_lock();
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;
>  
>  	/* Initialize I/O at desired address */
>  	cros_ec_lpc_mec_emi_write_address(offset, access);
> @@ -135,7 +190,9 @@ int cros_ec_lpc_io_bytes_mec(enum cros_ec_lpc_mec_io_type io_type,
>  	}
>  
>  done:
> -	mutex_unlock(&io_mutex);
> +	ret = cros_ec_lpc_mec_unlock();
> +	if (ret < 0)
> +		return ret;

A nit haven't caught in previous round review:

- `if (ret)` for cros_ec_lpc_mec_lock().
- `if (ret < 0)` for cros_ec_lpc_mec_unlock().

If I see the inconsistency when reading the code, it would take me further
cycles for seeking why.  We should fix it.

No need to resend for this; I will fix it for you.