All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 16:44:18 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <50C8A652.9040301@denx.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1355325915.3400.8.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com>

On 12/12/2012 04:25 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-12-10 at 19:40 +0100, Stefan Roese wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Would you please do this instead?

Yes. I was just waiting for some further comments.

>> 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).
> 
> So it looks like the idea is that you first take the mutex, then call
> get_chip() which will wait for the chip becoming really ready, and then
> you can safely use it.

Thats it.

>>
>>> 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.
> 
> Probably from 'get_chip()' ?

Yes, most likely.

>>> 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.
> 
> Right, there is indeed no deadlock.
> 
>> 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)
> 
> Why not to use this as well then for consistency?

Okay, will do.

I'll send a new patch version today.

Thanks for the review,
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: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 16:44:18 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <50C8A652.9040301@denx.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1355325915.3400.8.camel-Bxnoe/o8FG+Ef9UqXRslZEEOCMrvLtNR@public.gmane.org>

On 12/12/2012 04:25 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-12-10 at 19:40 +0100, Stefan Roese wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Would you please do this instead?

Yes. I was just waiting for some further comments.

>> 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).
> 
> So it looks like the idea is that you first take the mutex, then call
> get_chip() which will wait for the chip becoming really ready, and then
> you can safely use it.

Thats it.

>>
>>> 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.
> 
> Probably from 'get_chip()' ?

Yes, most likely.

>>> 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.
> 
> Right, there is indeed no deadlock.
> 
>> 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)
> 
> Why not to use this as well then for consistency?

Okay, will do.

I'll send a new patch version today.

Thanks for the review,
Stefan

  reply	other threads:[~2012-12-12 15:44 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
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 [this message]
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=50C8A652.9040301@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.