From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Russell King - ARM Linux Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] i2c: append hardware lock with bus lock Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:37:24 +0100 Message-ID: <20110428143724.GQ17290@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1303963358-4652-1-git-send-email-haojian.zhuang@gmail.com> <20110428102212.2d8d607c@endymion.delvare> <20110428161625.5eaacb85@endymion.delvare> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110428161625.5eaacb85-R0o5gVi9kd7kN2dkZ6Wm7A@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Jean Delvare Cc: Eric Miao , Haojian Zhuang , linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, ben-linux-elnMNo+KYs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 04:16:25PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > Are you suggesting that the hardware lock wouldn't mind being taken > twice by the AP side? If it is the case, then indeed the software mutex > is still needed to prevent it from happening. > > That being said... I guess that avoiding a priority inversion is a good > enough reason to always take the rt_mutex, regardless of the hardware > lock implementation. > > So, this patch is > > Acked-by: Jean Delvare > > I guess it makes more sense for me to let Ben apply it, as the other > two patches in the series are for him too. This will avoid a dependency > between our trees. Only change I'd suggest is passing adapter to the hardware_lock/unlock methods. Having no arguments what so ever in generic code for this kind of stuff looks rather strange and limiting.