Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932799Ab1D1OsH (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Apr 2011 10:48:07 -0400 Received: from mail-bw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:65526 "EHLO mail-bw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754103Ab1D1OsF convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Apr 2011 10:48:05 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=gIKt1U/ypdpuKeESidUPS0cWrAYsfVXr7NL7It0DgRh+N/oshDkoyb1xGOajeTNc3y x1Zut6qRmA3o/a5+9Z36adLwu++XH00pgvcewZjn67zVM2OlYbKdn1/n7wogF7DzgtsN xSG9LQWDqvNc5aCYg+6d+7PVl87GzSF824RtA= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20110428143724.GQ17290@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1303963358-4652-1-git-send-email-haojian.zhuang@gmail.com> <20110428102212.2d8d607c@endymion.delvare> <20110428161625.5eaacb85@endymion.delvare> <20110428143724.GQ17290@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 22:48:02 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] i2c: append hardware lock with bus lock From: Haojian Zhuang To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: Jean Delvare , Eric Miao , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, ben-linux@fluff.org, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1235 Lines: 30 On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 04:16:25PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: >> Are you suggesting that the hardware lock wouldn't mind being taken >> twice by the AP side? If it is the case, then indeed the software mutex >> is still needed to prevent it from happening. >> >> That being said... I guess that avoiding a priority inversion is a good >> enough reason to always take the rt_mutex, regardless of the hardware >> lock implementation. >> >> So, this patch is >> >> Acked-by: Jean Delvare >> >> I guess it makes more sense for me to let Ben apply it, as the other >> two patches in the series are for him too. This will avoid a dependency >> between our trees. > > Only change I'd suggest is passing adapter to the hardware_lock/unlock > methods. ?Having no arguments what so ever in generic code for this kind > of stuff looks rather strange and limiting. > OK. I'll update it. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/