Re: [PATCH] acpi: pmic: Replace mutex_lock/unlock() with guard()/scoped_guard()

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com>]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2026 at 10:55:01PM -0500, Maxwell Doose wrote:
> Replace mutex_lock() and unlock() macros with the newer guard() and
> scoped_guard() macros. This will help modernize and clean the code.
> 
> In intel_soc_pmic_exec_mipi_pmic_seq_element(): While at it, remove
> now redundant "ret" variable.

...

> static acpi_status intel_pmic_thermal_handler(u32 function,

> -	mutex_lock(&opregion->lock);
> +	scoped_guard(&opregion->lock) {
>  
>  	if (pmic_thermal_is_temp(address))
>  		result = pmic_thermal_temp(opregion, reg, function, value64);

>  	else
>  		result = -EINVAL;
>  
> -	mutex_unlock(&opregion->lock);
> +	}


No. You need to either split a helper and use guard()() there, or indent the
body of scoped_guard() accordingly.

...

> int intel_soc_pmic_exec_mipi_pmic_seq_element(u16 i2c_address, u32 reg_address,

> -	mutex_lock(&intel_pmic_opregion->lock);
> +	guard(&intel_pmic_opregion->lock);
>  
>  	if (d->exec_mipi_pmic_seq_element) {
> -		ret = d->exec_mipi_pmic_seq_element(intel_pmic_opregion->regmap,
> +		return d->exec_mipi_pmic_seq_element(intel_pmic_opregion->regmap,
>  						    i2c_address, reg_address,
>  						    value, mask);
>  	} else if (d->pmic_i2c_address) {
>  		if (i2c_address == d->pmic_i2c_address) {
> -			ret = regmap_update_bits(intel_pmic_opregion->regmap,
> +			return regmap_update_bits(intel_pmic_opregion->regmap,
>  						 reg_address, mask, value);
>  		} else {
>  			pr_err("%s: Unexpected i2c-addr: 0x%02x (reg-addr 0x%x value 0x%x mask 0x%x)\n",
>  			       __func__, i2c_address, reg_address, value, mask);
> -			ret = -ENXIO;
> +			return -ENXIO;
>  		}
>  	} else {
>  		pr_warn("%s: Not implemented\n", __func__);
>  		pr_warn("%s: i2c-addr: 0x%x reg-addr 0x%x value 0x%x mask 0x%x\n",
>  			__func__, i2c_address, reg_address, value, mask);
> -		ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>  	}
> -
> -	mutex_unlock(&intel_pmic_opregion->lock);
> -
> -	return ret;

This is not a switch-case and direct returns in if-else-if makes it harder to
follow. What you need is to drop now redundant 'else':s and leave the last one
unconditionally as the last code in the function.

>  }

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko