From: Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de>
To: dedekind1@gmail.com
Cc: Holger Brunck <holger.brunck@keymile.com>,
devicetree-discuss@ozlabs.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: cfi_cmdset_0002: Support Persistent Protection Bits (PPB) locking
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 19:40:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <50C62CBA.5040401@denx.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1355151644.2657.41.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com>
On 12/10/2012 04:00 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-12-07 at 08:22 +0100, Stefan Roese wrote:
>> + /*
>> + * Wait for some time as unlocking of all sectors takes quite long
>> + */
>> + timeo = jiffies + (2 * HZ); /* 2s max (un)locking */
>
> Please, use msecs_to_jiffies() instead.
Sure, thats better.
>> + for (;;) {
>> + if (chip_ready(map, adr))
>> + break;
>> +
>> + if (time_after(jiffies, timeo)) {
>> + printk(KERN_ERR "Waiting for chip to be ready timed out.\n");
>> + ret = -EIO;
>> + break;
>> + }
>> + mutex_unlock(&chip->mutex);
>> + cfi_udelay(1);
>> + mutex_lock(&chip->mutex);
>> + }
>
> Would you please educate me a bit and explain what is protected by
> 'chip->mutex' and by 'get_chip()'.
AFAIK, chip->mutex protects the access to the chip itself. So that
sequences are not interrupted.
I have to admit that I haven't looked into get_chip() so far. It seems
to handle a state machine. Normally (idle state) it will just fall
through (FL_READY).
> Why you need to drop the mutex here?
Not sure, that might not be necessary. Copy and past from another loop
in the same file.
> Why is it not an ABBA deadlock to do this:
>
> Task 1: In the loop above, has chip locked, doing
> mutex_lock(&chip->mutex);
>
> Task 2: done mutex_lock(&chip->mutex), now doing
> ret = get_chip(map, chip, adr + chip->start, FL_LOCKING);
I don't see two different locks/mutexes (only A) here. As get_chip()
does no request any real mutex. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
In many other places UDELAY() is called:
#define UDELAY(map, chip, adr, usec) \
do { \
mutex_unlock(&chip->mutex); \
cfi_udelay(usec); \
mutex_lock(&chip->mutex); \
} while (0)
So dropping this lock seems to be quite common in this driver.
Thanks,
Stefan
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Stefan Roese <sr-ynQEQJNshbs@public.gmane.org>
To: dedekind1-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org
Cc: Holger Brunck
<holger.brunck-SkAbAL50j+5BDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>,
devicetree-discuss-mnsaURCQ41sdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org,
linux-mtd-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: cfi_cmdset_0002: Support Persistent Protection Bits (PPB) locking
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 19:40:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <50C62CBA.5040401@denx.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1355151644.2657.41.camel-Bxnoe/o8FG+Ef9UqXRslZEEOCMrvLtNR@public.gmane.org>
On 12/10/2012 04:00 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-12-07 at 08:22 +0100, Stefan Roese wrote:
>> + /*
>> + * Wait for some time as unlocking of all sectors takes quite long
>> + */
>> + timeo = jiffies + (2 * HZ); /* 2s max (un)locking */
>
> Please, use msecs_to_jiffies() instead.
Sure, thats better.
>> + for (;;) {
>> + if (chip_ready(map, adr))
>> + break;
>> +
>> + if (time_after(jiffies, timeo)) {
>> + printk(KERN_ERR "Waiting for chip to be ready timed out.\n");
>> + ret = -EIO;
>> + break;
>> + }
>> + mutex_unlock(&chip->mutex);
>> + cfi_udelay(1);
>> + mutex_lock(&chip->mutex);
>> + }
>
> Would you please educate me a bit and explain what is protected by
> 'chip->mutex' and by 'get_chip()'.
AFAIK, chip->mutex protects the access to the chip itself. So that
sequences are not interrupted.
I have to admit that I haven't looked into get_chip() so far. It seems
to handle a state machine. Normally (idle state) it will just fall
through (FL_READY).
> Why you need to drop the mutex here?
Not sure, that might not be necessary. Copy and past from another loop
in the same file.
> Why is it not an ABBA deadlock to do this:
>
> Task 1: In the loop above, has chip locked, doing
> mutex_lock(&chip->mutex);
>
> Task 2: done mutex_lock(&chip->mutex), now doing
> ret = get_chip(map, chip, adr + chip->start, FL_LOCKING);
I don't see two different locks/mutexes (only A) here. As get_chip()
does no request any real mutex. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
In many other places UDELAY() is called:
#define UDELAY(map, chip, adr, usec) \
do { \
mutex_unlock(&chip->mutex); \
cfi_udelay(usec); \
mutex_lock(&chip->mutex); \
} while (0)
So dropping this lock seems to be quite common in this driver.
Thanks,
Stefan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-12-10 18:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-12-07 7:22 [PATCH] mtd: cfi_cmdset_0002: Support Persistent Protection Bits (PPB) locking Stefan Roese
2012-12-07 7:22 ` Stefan Roese
2012-12-07 10:41 ` Holger Brunck
2012-12-07 10:41 ` Holger Brunck
2012-12-10 15:00 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-12-10 15:00 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-12-10 18:40 ` Stefan Roese [this message]
2012-12-10 18:40 ` Stefan Roese
2012-12-12 15:25 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-12-12 15:25 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-12-12 15:44 ` Stefan Roese
2012-12-12 15:44 ` Stefan Roese
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=50C62CBA.5040401@denx.de \
--to=sr@denx.de \
--cc=dedekind1@gmail.com \
--cc=devicetree-discuss@ozlabs.org \
--cc=holger.brunck@keymile.com \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.