Re: [PATCH v7 00/12] mux controller abstraction and iio/i2c muxes

[Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1235 bytes --]

Hi peda,

> One thing that I would like to do, but don't see a solution
> for, is to move the mux control code that is present in
> various drivers in drivers/i2c/muxes to this new minimalistic
> muxing subsystem, thus converting all present i2c muxes (but
> perhaps not gates and arbitrators) to be i2c-mux-simple muxes.

In a few lines, what is preventing that?

> I'm using an rwsem to lock a mux, but that isn't really a
> perfect fit. Is there a better locking primitive that I don't
> know about that fits better? I had a mutex at one point, but
> that didn't allow any concurrent accesses at all. At least
> the rwsem allows concurrent access as long as all users
> agree on the mux state, but I suspect that the rwsem will
> degrade to the mutex situation pretty quickly if there is
> any contention.

Maybe ask this question in a seperate email thread on lkml cc-ing the
locking gurus (with a pointer to this thread)?

> Also, the "mux" name feels a bit ambitious, there are many muxes
> in the world, and this tiny bit of code is probably not good
> enough to be a nice fit for all...

"... and it probably never will support anything other than
AT-harddisks, as that's all I have..." ;))

Thanks for this work!

   Wolfram


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]