[PATCH] ARM: OMAPFB: panel-sony-acx565akm: fix bad unlock balance

[PATCH] ARM: OMAPFB: panel-sony-acx565akm: fix bad unlock balance

[Aaro Koskinen]

When booting Nokia N900 smartphone with v3.12 + omap2plus_defconfig
(LOCKDEP enabled) and CONFIG_DISPLAY_PANEL_SONY_ACX565AKM enabled,
the following BUG is seen during the boot:

[    7.302154] ==================[    7.307128] [ BUG: bad unlock balance detected! ]
[    7.312103] 3.12.0-los.git-2093492-00120-g5e01dc7 #3 Not tainted
[    7.318450] -------------------------------------
[    7.323425] kworker/u2:1/12 is trying to release lock (&ddata->mutex) at:
[    7.330657] [<c031b760>] acx565akm_enable+0x12c/0x18c
[    7.335998] but there are no more locks to release!

Fix by removing the extra mutex_unlock().

Reported-by: Eduardo Valentin <eduardo.valentin@ti.com>
Signed-off-by: Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@iki.fi>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
---
 drivers/video/omap2/displays-new/panel-sony-acx565akm.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/video/omap2/displays-new/panel-sony-acx565akm.c b/drivers/video/omap2/displays-new/panel-sony-acx565akm.c
index e6d56f7..72fe2a8 100644
--- a/drivers/video/omap2/displays-new/panel-sony-acx565akm.c
+++ b/drivers/video/omap2/displays-new/panel-sony-acx565akm.c
@@ -616,7 +616,7 @@ static int acx565akm_enable(struct omap_dss_device *dssdev)
 
 	mutex_lock(&ddata->mutex);
 	r = acx565akm_panel_power_on(dssdev);
-	mutex_unlock(&ddata->mutex);
+	/* NOTE: acx565akm_panel_power_on() will unlock the mutex. */
 
 	if (r)
 		return r;
-- 
1.8.4.2

Re: [PATCH] ARM: OMAPFB: panel-sony-acx565akm: fix bad unlock balance

[Tomi Valkeinen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1751 bytes --]

On 2013-11-06 23:24, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
> When booting Nokia N900 smartphone with v3.12 + omap2plus_defconfig
> (LOCKDEP enabled) and CONFIG_DISPLAY_PANEL_SONY_ACX565AKM enabled,
> the following BUG is seen during the boot:
> 
> [    7.302154] =====================================
> [    7.307128] [ BUG: bad unlock balance detected! ]
> [    7.312103] 3.12.0-los.git-2093492-00120-g5e01dc7 #3 Not tainted
> [    7.318450] -------------------------------------
> [    7.323425] kworker/u2:1/12 is trying to release lock (&ddata->mutex) at:
> [    7.330657] [<c031b760>] acx565akm_enable+0x12c/0x18c
> [    7.335998] but there are no more locks to release!
> 
> Fix by removing the extra mutex_unlock().
> 
> Reported-by: Eduardo Valentin <eduardo.valentin@ti.com>
> Signed-off-by: Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@iki.fi>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> ---
>  drivers/video/omap2/displays-new/panel-sony-acx565akm.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/video/omap2/displays-new/panel-sony-acx565akm.c b/drivers/video/omap2/displays-new/panel-sony-acx565akm.c
> index e6d56f7..72fe2a8 100644
> --- a/drivers/video/omap2/displays-new/panel-sony-acx565akm.c
> +++ b/drivers/video/omap2/displays-new/panel-sony-acx565akm.c
> @@ -616,7 +616,7 @@ static int acx565akm_enable(struct omap_dss_device *dssdev)
>  
>  	mutex_lock(&ddata->mutex);
>  	r = acx565akm_panel_power_on(dssdev);
> -	mutex_unlock(&ddata->mutex);
> +	/* NOTE: acx565akm_panel_power_on() will unlock the mutex. */
>  
>  	if (r)
>  		return r;
> 

Hm why would you fix it like this? Why not remove the mutex_unlock from
acx565akm_panel_power_on()? Looks to me like that one is the buggy one.

 Tomi



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 901 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] ARM: OMAPFB: panel-sony-acx565akm: fix bad unlock balance

[Aaro Koskinen]

Hi,

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 03:37:37PM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 2013-11-06 23:24, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
> > When booting Nokia N900 smartphone with v3.12 + omap2plus_defconfig
> > (LOCKDEP enabled) and CONFIG_DISPLAY_PANEL_SONY_ACX565AKM enabled,
> > the following BUG is seen during the boot:
> > 
> > [    7.302154] ==================> > [    7.307128] [ BUG: bad unlock balance detected! ]
> > [    7.312103] 3.12.0-los.git-2093492-00120-g5e01dc7 #3 Not tainted
> > [    7.318450] -------------------------------------
> > [    7.323425] kworker/u2:1/12 is trying to release lock (&ddata->mutex) at:
> > [    7.330657] [<c031b760>] acx565akm_enable+0x12c/0x18c
> > [    7.335998] but there are no more locks to release!
> > 
> > Fix by removing the extra mutex_unlock().
> > 
> > Reported-by: Eduardo Valentin <eduardo.valentin@ti.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@iki.fi>
> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > ---
> >  drivers/video/omap2/displays-new/panel-sony-acx565akm.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/video/omap2/displays-new/panel-sony-acx565akm.c b/drivers/video/omap2/displays-new/panel-sony-acx565akm.c
> > index e6d56f7..72fe2a8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/video/omap2/displays-new/panel-sony-acx565akm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/video/omap2/displays-new/panel-sony-acx565akm.c
> > @@ -616,7 +616,7 @@ static int acx565akm_enable(struct omap_dss_device *dssdev)
> >  
> >  	mutex_lock(&ddata->mutex);
> >  	r = acx565akm_panel_power_on(dssdev);
> > -	mutex_unlock(&ddata->mutex);
> > +	/* NOTE: acx565akm_panel_power_on() will unlock the mutex. */
> >  
> >  	if (r)
> >  		return r;
> > 
> 
> Hm why would you fix it like this? Why not remove the mutex_unlock from
> acx565akm_panel_power_on()? Looks to me like that one is the buggy one.

The unlock needs to be there because acx565akm_bl_update_status()
also locks the mutex. I'll send a new version where the mutex_lock()
is done inside acx565akm_panel_power_on().

A.

[PATCH] ARM: OMAPFB: panel-sony-acx565akm: fix missing unlock in acx565akm_panel_power_on()

[Wei Yongjun]

From: Wei Yongjun <yongjun_wei@trendmicro.com.cn>

Add the missing unlock before return from function
acx565akm_panel_power_on() in the error handling case.

Signed-off-by: Wei Yongjun <yongjun_wei@trendmicro.com.cn>
---
 drivers/video/omap2/displays-new/panel-sony-acx565akm.c | 9 +++++++--
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/video/omap2/displays-new/panel-sony-acx565akm.c b/drivers/video/omap2/displays-new/panel-sony-acx565akm.c
index d94f35d..69aa4a1 100644
--- a/drivers/video/omap2/displays-new/panel-sony-acx565akm.c
+++ b/drivers/video/omap2/displays-new/panel-sony-acx565akm.c
@@ -536,7 +536,7 @@ static int acx565akm_panel_power_on(struct omap_dss_device *dssdev)
 	r = in->ops.sdi->enable(in);
 	if (r) {
 		pr_err("%s sdi enable failed\n", __func__);
-		return r;
+		goto out;
 	}
 
 	/*FIXME tweak me */
@@ -547,7 +547,8 @@ static int acx565akm_panel_power_on(struct omap_dss_device *dssdev)
 
 	if (ddata->enabled) {
 		dev_dbg(&ddata->spi->dev, "panel already enabled\n");
-		return 0;
+		r = 0;
+		goto out;
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -571,6 +572,10 @@ static int acx565akm_panel_power_on(struct omap_dss_device *dssdev)
 	mutex_unlock(&ddata->mutex);
 
 	return acx565akm_bl_update_status(ddata->bl_dev);
+
+out:
+	mutex_unlock(&ddata->mutex);
+	return r;
 }
 
 static void acx565akm_panel_power_off(struct omap_dss_device *dssdev)

Re: [PATCH] ARM: OMAPFB: panel-sony-acx565akm: fix missing unlock in acx565akm_panel_power_on()

[Tomi Valkeinen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 442 bytes --]

Hi,

On 2013-12-06 14:55, Wei Yongjun wrote:
> From: Wei Yongjun <yongjun_wei@trendmicro.com.cn>
> 
> Add the missing unlock before return from function
> acx565akm_panel_power_on() in the error handling case.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Wei Yongjun <yongjun_wei@trendmicro.com.cn>

A fix for this has already been merged:
c37dd677988ca50bc8bc60ab5ab053720583c168 (ARM: OMAPFB:
panel-sony-acx565akm: fix bad unlock balance)

 Tomi



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 901 bytes --]

[PATCH] ARM: OMAPFB: panel-sony-acx565akm: fix missing mutex unlocks

[Ivaylo Dimitrov]

From: Ivaylo Dimitrov <freemangordon@abv.bg>

Commit c37dd677988ca50bc8bc60ab5ab053720583c168 fixes the unbalanced
unlock in acx565akm_enable but introduces another problem - if
acx565akm_panel_power_on exits early, the mutex is not unlocked. Fix
that by unlocking the mutex on early return. Also add mutex protection in
acx565akm_panel_power_off and remove an unused variable

Signed-off-by: Ivaylo Dimitrov <freemangordon@abv.bg>
---
 .../omap2/displays-new/panel-sony-acx565akm.c      |   12 ++++++++++--
 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/video/omap2/displays-new/panel-sony-acx565akm.c b/drivers/video/omap2/displays-new/panel-sony-acx565akm.c
index d94f35d..a093d3a 100644
--- a/drivers/video/omap2/displays-new/panel-sony-acx565akm.c
+++ b/drivers/video/omap2/displays-new/panel-sony-acx565akm.c
@@ -535,6 +535,7 @@ static int acx565akm_panel_power_on(struct omap_dss_device *dssdev)
 
 	r = in->ops.sdi->enable(in);
 	if (r) {
+		mutex_unlock(&ddata->mutex);
 		pr_err("%s sdi enable failed\n", __func__);
 		return r;
 	}
@@ -546,6 +547,7 @@ static int acx565akm_panel_power_on(struct omap_dss_device *dssdev)
 		gpio_set_value(ddata->reset_gpio, 1);
 
 	if (ddata->enabled) {
+		mutex_unlock(&ddata->mutex);
 		dev_dbg(&ddata->spi->dev, "panel already enabled\n");
 		return 0;
 	}
@@ -578,10 +580,14 @@ static void acx565akm_panel_power_off(struct omap_dss_device *dssdev)
 	struct panel_drv_data *ddata = to_panel_data(dssdev);
 	struct omap_dss_device *in = ddata->in;
 
+	mutex_lock(&ddata->mutex);
+
 	dev_dbg(dssdev->dev, "%s\n", __func__);
 
-	if (!ddata->enabled)
+	if (!ddata->enabled) {
+		mutex_unlock(&ddata->mutex);
 		return;
+	}
 
 	set_display_state(ddata, 0);
 	set_sleep_mode(ddata, 1);
@@ -601,11 +607,13 @@ static void acx565akm_panel_power_off(struct omap_dss_device *dssdev)
 	msleep(100);
 
 	in->ops.sdi->disable(in);
+
+	mutex_unlock(&ddata->mutex);
+
 }
 
 static int acx565akm_enable(struct omap_dss_device *dssdev)
 {
-	struct panel_drv_data *ddata = to_panel_data(dssdev);
 	int r;
 
 	dev_dbg(dssdev->dev, "%s\n", __func__);
-- 
1.5.6.1

Re: [PATCH] ARM: OMAPFB: panel-sony-acx565akm: fix missing mutex unlocks

[Pavel Machek]

On Mon 2013-12-30 18:17:52, Ivaylo Dimitrov wrote:
> From: Ivaylo Dimitrov <freemangordon@abv.bg>
> 
> Commit c37dd677988ca50bc8bc60ab5ab053720583c168 fixes the unbalanced
> unlock in acx565akm_enable but introduces another problem - if
> acx565akm_panel_power_on exits early, the mutex is not unlocked. Fix
> that by unlocking the mutex on early return. Also add mutex protection in
> acx565akm_panel_power_off and remove an unused variable
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ivaylo Dimitrov <freemangordon@abv.bg>

Reviewed-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

Re: [PATCH] ARM: OMAPFB: panel-sony-acx565akm: fix missing mutex unlocks

[Ivaylo Dimitrov]

On 04.01.2014 14:51, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Mon 2013-12-30 18:17:52, Ivaylo Dimitrov wrote:
>> From: Ivaylo Dimitrov <freemangordon@abv.bg>
>>
>> Commit c37dd677988ca50bc8bc60ab5ab053720583c168 fixes the unbalanced
>> unlock in acx565akm_enable but introduces another problem - if
>> acx565akm_panel_power_on exits early, the mutex is not unlocked. Fix
>> that by unlocking the mutex on early return. Also add mutex protection in
>> acx565akm_panel_power_off and remove an unused variable
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ivaylo Dimitrov <freemangordon@abv.bg>
> Reviewed-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>

Hmm, I introduced a bug with that patch (recursive lock), will send a 
new version that fixes it

Regards,
Ivo

[PATCH v2] ARM: OMAPFB: panel-sony-acx565akm: fix missing mutex unlocks

[Ivaylo Dimitrov]

From: Ivaylo Dimitrov <freemangordon@abv.bg>

Commit c37dd677988ca50bc8bc60ab5ab053720583c168 fixes the unbalanced
unlock in acx565akm_enable but introduces another problem - if
acx565akm_panel_power_on exits early, the mutex is not unlocked. Fix
that by unlocking the mutex on early return. Also add mutex protection in
acx565akm_panel_power_off and remove an unused variable

Signed-off-by: Ivaylo Dimitrov <freemangordon@abv.bg>
---
 .../omap2/displays-new/panel-sony-acx565akm.c      |   16 ++++++++++------
 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/video/omap2/displays-new/panel-sony-acx565akm.c b/drivers/video/omap2/displays-new/panel-sony-acx565akm.c
index d94f35d..9aef7fa 100644
--- a/drivers/video/omap2/displays-new/panel-sony-acx565akm.c
+++ b/drivers/video/omap2/displays-new/panel-sony-acx565akm.c
@@ -535,6 +535,7 @@ static int acx565akm_panel_power_on(struct omap_dss_device *dssdev)
 
 	r = in->ops.sdi->enable(in);
 	if (r) {
+		mutex_unlock(&ddata->mutex);
 		pr_err("%s sdi enable failed\n", __func__);
 		return r;
 	}
@@ -546,6 +547,7 @@ static int acx565akm_panel_power_on(struct omap_dss_device *dssdev)
 		gpio_set_value(ddata->reset_gpio, 1);
 
 	if (ddata->enabled) {
+		mutex_unlock(&ddata->mutex);
 		dev_dbg(&ddata->spi->dev, "panel already enabled\n");
 		return 0;
 	}
@@ -578,10 +580,14 @@ static void acx565akm_panel_power_off(struct omap_dss_device *dssdev)
 	struct panel_drv_data *ddata = to_panel_data(dssdev);
 	struct omap_dss_device *in = ddata->in;
 
+	mutex_lock(&ddata->mutex);
+
 	dev_dbg(dssdev->dev, "%s\n", __func__);
 
-	if (!ddata->enabled)
+	if (!ddata->enabled) {
+		mutex_unlock(&ddata->mutex);
 		return;
+	}
 
 	set_display_state(ddata, 0);
 	set_sleep_mode(ddata, 1);
@@ -601,11 +607,13 @@ static void acx565akm_panel_power_off(struct omap_dss_device *dssdev)
 	msleep(100);
 
 	in->ops.sdi->disable(in);
+
+	mutex_unlock(&ddata->mutex);
+
 }
 
 static int acx565akm_enable(struct omap_dss_device *dssdev)
 {
-	struct panel_drv_data *ddata = to_panel_data(dssdev);
 	int r;
 
 	dev_dbg(dssdev->dev, "%s\n", __func__);
@@ -627,16 +635,12 @@ static int acx565akm_enable(struct omap_dss_device *dssdev)
 
 static void acx565akm_disable(struct omap_dss_device *dssdev)
 {
-	struct panel_drv_data *ddata = to_panel_data(dssdev);
-
 	dev_dbg(dssdev->dev, "%s\n", __func__);
 
 	if (!omapdss_device_is_enabled(dssdev))
 		return;
 
-	mutex_lock(&ddata->mutex);
 	acx565akm_panel_power_off(dssdev);
-	mutex_unlock(&ddata->mutex);
 
 	dssdev->state = OMAP_DSS_DISPLAY_DISABLED;
 }
-- 
1.5.6.1

Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: OMAPFB: panel-sony-acx565akm: fix missing mutex unlocks

[Tomi Valkeinen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3767 bytes --]

On 2014-01-05 15:13, Ivaylo Dimitrov wrote:
> From: Ivaylo Dimitrov <freemangordon@abv.bg>
> 
> Commit c37dd677988ca50bc8bc60ab5ab053720583c168 fixes the unbalanced
> unlock in acx565akm_enable but introduces another problem - if
> acx565akm_panel_power_on exits early, the mutex is not unlocked. Fix
> that by unlocking the mutex on early return. Also add mutex protection in
> acx565akm_panel_power_off and remove an unused variable
> 

I think this is just getting more messy. How about we more or less revert the c37dd677988ca50bc8bc60ab5ab053720583c168 and fix it like this:


diff --git a/drivers/video/omap2/displays-new/panel-sony-acx565akm.c b/drivers/video/omap2/displays-new/panel-sony-acx565akm.c
index 714ee92dfb9f..8e97d06921ff 100644
--- a/drivers/video/omap2/displays-new/panel-sony-acx565akm.c
+++ b/drivers/video/omap2/displays-new/panel-sony-acx565akm.c
@@ -346,28 +346,22 @@ static int acx565akm_get_actual_brightness(struct panel_drv_data *ddata)
 static int acx565akm_bl_update_status(struct backlight_device *dev)
 {
 	struct panel_drv_data *ddata = dev_get_drvdata(&dev->dev);
-	int r;
 	int level;
 
 	dev_dbg(&ddata->spi->dev, "%s\n", __func__);
 
-	mutex_lock(&ddata->mutex);
-
 	if (dev->props.fb_blank == FB_BLANK_UNBLANK &&
 			dev->props.power == FB_BLANK_UNBLANK)
 		level = dev->props.brightness;
 	else
 		level = 0;
 
-	r = 0;
 	if (ddata->has_bc)
 		acx565akm_set_brightness(ddata, level);
 	else
-		r = -ENODEV;
-
-	mutex_unlock(&ddata->mutex);
+		return -ENODEV;
 
-	return r;
+	return 0;
 }
 
 static int acx565akm_bl_get_intensity(struct backlight_device *dev)
@@ -390,9 +384,33 @@ static int acx565akm_bl_get_intensity(struct backlight_device *dev)
 	return 0;
 }
 
+static int acx565akm_bl_update_status_locked(struct backlight_device *dev)
+{
+	struct panel_drv_data *ddata = dev_get_drvdata(&dev->dev);
+	int r;
+
+	mutex_lock(&ddata->mutex);
+	r = acx565akm_bl_update_status(dev);
+	mutex_unlock(&ddata->mutex);
+
+	return r;
+}
+
+static int acx565akm_bl_get_intensity_locked(struct backlight_device *dev)
+{
+	struct panel_drv_data *ddata = dev_get_drvdata(&dev->dev);
+	int r;
+
+	mutex_lock(&ddata->mutex);
+	r = acx565akm_bl_get_intensity(dev);
+	mutex_unlock(&ddata->mutex);
+
+	return r;
+}
+
 static const struct backlight_ops acx565akm_bl_ops = {
-	.get_brightness = acx565akm_bl_get_intensity,
-	.update_status  = acx565akm_bl_update_status,
+	.get_brightness = acx565akm_bl_get_intensity_locked,
+	.update_status  = acx565akm_bl_update_status_locked,
 };
 
 /*--------------------Auto Brightness control via Sysfs---------------------*/
@@ -526,8 +544,6 @@ static int acx565akm_panel_power_on(struct omap_dss_device *dssdev)
 	struct omap_dss_device *in = ddata->in;
 	int r;
 
-	mutex_lock(&ddata->mutex);
-
 	dev_dbg(&ddata->spi->dev, "%s\n", __func__);
 
 	in->ops.sdi->set_timings(in, &ddata->videomode);
@@ -568,8 +584,6 @@ static int acx565akm_panel_power_on(struct omap_dss_device *dssdev)
 	set_display_state(ddata, 1);
 	set_cabc_mode(ddata, ddata->cabc_mode);
 
-	mutex_unlock(&ddata->mutex);
-
 	return acx565akm_bl_update_status(ddata->bl_dev);
 }
 
@@ -605,6 +619,7 @@ static void acx565akm_panel_power_off(struct omap_dss_device *dssdev)
 
 static int acx565akm_enable(struct omap_dss_device *dssdev)
 {
+	struct panel_drv_data *ddata = to_panel_data(dssdev);
 	int r;
 
 	dev_dbg(dssdev->dev, "%s\n", __func__);
@@ -615,7 +630,9 @@ static int acx565akm_enable(struct omap_dss_device *dssdev)
 	if (omapdss_device_is_enabled(dssdev))
 		return 0;
 
+	mutex_lock(&ddata->mutex);
 	r = acx565akm_panel_power_on(dssdev);
+	mutex_unlock(&ddata->mutex);
 	if (r)
 		return r;
 



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 901 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: OMAPFB: panel-sony-acx565akm: fix missing mutex unlocks

[Ivaylo Dimitrov]

On 10.01.2014 12:56, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 2014-01-05 15:13, Ivaylo Dimitrov wrote:
>> From: Ivaylo Dimitrov <freemangordon@abv.bg>
>>
>> Commit c37dd677988ca50bc8bc60ab5ab053720583c168 fixes the unbalanced
>> unlock in acx565akm_enable but introduces another problem - if
>> acx565akm_panel_power_on exits early, the mutex is not unlocked. Fix
>> that by unlocking the mutex on early return. Also add mutex protection in
>> acx565akm_panel_power_off and remove an unused variable
>>
>
> I think this is just getting more messy. How about we more or less revert the c37dd677988ca50bc8bc60ab5ab053720583c168 and fix it like this:
>

I am fine with whatever patch you may come with, as long as it fixes the 
issue.

>
> diff --git a/drivers/video/omap2/displays-new/panel-sony-acx565akm.c b/drivers/video/omap2/displays-new/panel-sony-acx565akm.c
> index 714ee92dfb9f..8e97d06921ff 100644
> --- a/drivers/video/omap2/displays-new/panel-sony-acx565akm.c
> +++ b/drivers/video/omap2/displays-new/panel-sony-acx565akm.c

The patch does not apply cleanly on top of rc7, however I applied it by 
hand. So far it seems it fixes the issue brought by 
c37dd677988ca50bc8bc60ab5ab053720583c168, though I didn't test if 
mutex_lock/mutex_unlock are complementary in every code path (at least 
not explicitly, I guess maemo is doing it for us anyway :) ).

So, shall I send a patch incorporating your code changes, or you will do it?

Regards,
Ivo

Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: OMAPFB: panel-sony-acx565akm: fix missing mutex unlocks

[Tomi Valkeinen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 518 bytes --]

On 2014-01-11 11:39, Ivaylo Dimitrov wrote:

> The patch does not apply cleanly on top of rc7, however I applied it by
> hand. So far it seems it fixes the issue brought by
> c37dd677988ca50bc8bc60ab5ab053720583c168, though I didn't test if
> mutex_lock/mutex_unlock are complementary in every code path (at least
> not explicitly, I guess maemo is doing it for us anyway :) ).

Ok, thanks.

> So, shall I send a patch incorporating your code changes, or you will do
> it?

I can handle it.

 Tomi



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 901 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: OMAPFB: panel-sony-acx565akm: fix missing mutex unlocks

[Ivaylo Dimitrov]

Hi Tomi,

On 13.01.2014 12:20, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 2014-01-11 11:39, Ivaylo Dimitrov wrote:
>
>> The patch does not apply cleanly on top of rc7, however I applied it by
>> hand. So far it seems it fixes the issue brought by
>> c37dd677988ca50bc8bc60ab5ab053720583c168, though I didn't test if
>> mutex_lock/mutex_unlock are complementary in every code path (at least
>> not explicitly, I guess maemo is doing it for us anyway :) ).
>
> Ok, thanks.
>
>> So, shall I send a patch incorporating your code changes, or you will do
>> it?
>
> I can handle it.
>
>   Tomi
>
>

I still don't see those fixes in mainline, shall I send a patch?

Ivo

Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: OMAPFB: panel-sony-acx565akm: fix missing mutex unlocks

[Tomi Valkeinen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 833 bytes --]



On 25/12/15 15:29, Ivaylo Dimitrov wrote:
> 
> Hi Tomi,
> 
> On 13.01.2014 12:20, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
>> On 2014-01-11 11:39, Ivaylo Dimitrov wrote:
>>
>>> The patch does not apply cleanly on top of rc7, however I applied it by
>>> hand. So far it seems it fixes the issue brought by
>>> c37dd677988ca50bc8bc60ab5ab053720583c168, though I didn't test if
>>> mutex_lock/mutex_unlock are complementary in every code path (at least
>>> not explicitly, I guess maemo is doing it for us anyway :) ).
>>
>> Ok, thanks.
>>
>>> So, shall I send a patch incorporating your code changes, or you will do
>>> it?
>>
>> I can handle it.
>>
>>   Tomi
>>
>>
> 
> I still don't see those fixes in mainline, shall I send a patch?

Oh, I'm sorry, I must have forgotten about that. Please, send a new patch.

 Tomi


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

Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: OMAPFB: panel-sony-acx565akm: fix missing mutex unlocks

[Ivaylo Dimitrov]

On 29.12.2015 09:46, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
>
> Oh, I'm sorry, I must have forgotten about that. Please, send a new patch.
>
>   Tomi
>

Actually it is me to be sorry for making noise, I've missed 
0eb0dafb674cd6bfac2e3204b2f8b907e26b1138 with all those patches moving 
files around.

Ivo