From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Haojian Zhuang Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] i2c: append hardware lock with bus lock Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 22:48:02 +0800 Message-ID: References: <1303963358-4652-1-git-send-email-haojian.zhuang@gmail.com> <20110428102212.2d8d607c@endymion.delvare> <20110428161625.5eaacb85@endymion.delvare> <20110428143724.GQ17290@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110428143724.GQ17290@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: Jean Delvare , Eric Miao , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, ben-linux@fluff.org, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > 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 mu= tex >> is still needed to prevent it from happening. >> >> That being said... I guess that avoiding a priority inversion is a g= ood >> enough reason to always take the rt_mutex, regardless of the hardwar= e >> 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 depende= ncy >> between our trees. > > Only change I'd suggest is passing adapter to the hardware_lock/unloc= k > methods. =A0Having no arguments what so ever in generic code for this= kind > of stuff looks rather strange and limiting. > OK. I'll update it.