From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
To: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>
Cc: Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>,
Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@kernel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/8] iio: accel: kx022a: Use cleanup.h helpers
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2024 17:55:50 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20241126175550.4a8bedf3@jic23-huawei> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bda7eaff-1315-46d0-83b4-a14060c2af1c@gmail.com>
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 11:34:36 +0200
Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Jonathan,
>
> Thanks again!
>
> On 23/11/2024 18:42, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 10:20:23 +0200
> > Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> A few functions in KX022A need to use mutex for protecting the
> >> enabling/disabling of the measurement while configurations are being
> >> made. Some of the functions can be slightly simplified by using the
> >> __cleanup based scoped mutexes, which allows dropping the goto based
> >> unlocking at error path.
> >>
> >> Simplify error paths using guard(mutex).
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>
> > Now we have guard(), the main reason (I think) for the
> > combined on + lock and off + unlock paths is gone. So can
> > we just flatten those and do the locking at caller.
>
> I did consider this too :)
>
> Why I decided to keep it as it is, (even though we need the extra
> mutex_unlock() at certain error path) is because I kind of like the
> lock+off and unlock+on functions. This locking does not protect data,
> but really a sequence of operations that needs to be done while sensor
> is OFF state. It's almost like a doc saying that "please, ensure the
> sensor is OFF for the following operations" :)
hmm. I really don't like them because they are 'unusual' :)
I'd argue they just ensure a sequence of writes go in as an atomic thing.
Two of those writes happen to be turn it off and turn it on.
So the data the are protecting is the device internal state data.
>
> (Another thing is that we do claim the direct mode in write_raw, and
> goto is still handy for releasing it. Scoped guards won't play nicely
> with goto. Yes, we could probably use the __cleanup for direct mode, but
> I still like the lock+off, unlock+on for the reason above)
There is a nice new cleanup that David did to make the direct mode
handling much cleaner.
if_not_cond_guard(iio_claim_direct_try, indio_dev)
return -EBUSY;
>
> Yours,
> -- Matti
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-11-26 17:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-11-21 8:19 [PATCH v2 0/8] Support ROHM KX134ACR-LBZ Matti Vaittinen
2024-11-21 8:19 ` [PATCH v2 1/8] iio: accel: kx022a: Improve reset delay Matti Vaittinen
2024-11-23 16:34 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-11-21 8:20 ` [PATCH v2 2/8] iio: gts: Simplify using __free Matti Vaittinen
2024-11-23 16:37 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-11-25 9:16 ` Matti Vaittinen
2024-11-26 17:52 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-11-27 14:14 ` Matti Vaittinen
2024-11-21 8:20 ` [PATCH v2 3/8] iio: accel: kx022a: Use cleanup.h helpers Matti Vaittinen
2024-11-23 16:42 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-11-25 9:34 ` Matti Vaittinen
2024-11-26 17:55 ` Jonathan Cameron [this message]
2024-11-27 13:54 ` Matti Vaittinen
2024-11-21 8:20 ` [PATCH v2 4/8] iio: accel: kx022a: Support ICs with different G-ranges Matti Vaittinen
2024-11-21 8:20 ` [PATCH v2 5/8] dt-bindings: ROHM KX134ACR-LBZ Matti Vaittinen
2024-11-21 8:21 ` [PATCH v2 6/8] iio: kx022a: Support " Matti Vaittinen
2024-11-21 8:21 ` [PATCH v2 7/8] dt-bindings: iio: kx022a: Support KX134-1211 Matti Vaittinen
2024-11-21 19:55 ` Conor Dooley
2024-11-21 8:21 ` [PATCH v2 8/8] iio: accel: " Matti Vaittinen
2024-11-23 16:43 ` Jonathan Cameron
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=20241126175550.4a8bedf3@jic23-huawei \
--to=jic23@kernel.org \
--cc=conor+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=krzk+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=lars@metafoo.de \
--cc=linux-iio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com \
--cc=mazziesaccount@gmail.com \
--cc=robh@kernel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).