From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7672C83F11 for ; Sun, 27 Aug 2023 16:22:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229765AbjH0QWA (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Aug 2023 12:22:00 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:33228 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229713AbjH0QVu (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Aug 2023 12:21:50 -0400 Received: from mail-ed1-x532.google.com (mail-ed1-x532.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::532]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D805CFE for ; Sun, 27 Aug 2023 09:21:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ed1-x532.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-522dd6b6438so3330404a12.0 for ; Sun, 27 Aug 2023 09:21:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1693153305; x=1693758105; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=1kYabs9vUGaQTJJt3ZxESUsK/gDXfMSAFcFY8xzFlPM=; b=IsC+KF0SvHD5bim+PhwQSfTd2/kLNUYnQmUliNenioQlAD/jleLuvsrp5enKu59mC6 Q5tkH3l0wG2WkPOEidMUdZmk7cNjuNuJB+Tp2O3I70XVWKhiOGLEMf9DD5PfqFjQlmUv HKBw8M4QLpFrapX4YI/gDqmjRyFikuJOH8d5kifGA+MtT57sN6k6TjDnjSa+wKDs3UMS AZ4i862+XXudw5GtnR8y9X8gWpskxJ/0GR2C4ITlvW8KsgZFxufGic/5dh4ziag6134I YoR+uAdp1Qwe/orwvLy0+45UPY2/0auoG9CXywjcZA2KTSDbkA5QH6Cw3rTwxZaqpQjJ WVUw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1693153305; x=1693758105; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=1kYabs9vUGaQTJJt3ZxESUsK/gDXfMSAFcFY8xzFlPM=; b=gerVSs0iHgMMnMYhZl4G5c7G3wiZYI9kFi7mhJthSGobocKhBP7X46W1ah/UyWO7Uy 1PsgvrijUUz3n5TjdRkonc9cEM93xxzqcOvGeNHkQtixR/WwZtPNjDvPSy5Tk5ja3/GQ gmli0Ps1cN6WJWUcrayazlky9rVFgNf+n31zC8cZRE4DSJXxwSV/nGOAratNJhN6ZCTZ Qyz1KMJfopOGrfdTRFlZa1uffGvkTjI0j+ShGjo+1OKXaito8pFDTMrMYhTXKaxzZXBk dlQFU7+XvLlwdNAJ0UD25F8JYtff4E1Gk2Xy1/z0cmS/fQbd5CwWP/yDevMRsxmyflUk QRZg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwymPQOyJnaCv0gTCkubAHt7NdpY5hELJspKN9oTNzJ3u9rmLO4 TdlTGfgTDnTDhkpWEBll1R0WZcjbc6c= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFKI3FQdQicw5zfhdBfalKnAZLOqHXlOWCJ1xiebHM+zTLIkmfsJQn4YuXAnLiNYdWAhT/0ng== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:18b:b0:51e:53eb:88a3 with SMTP id r11-20020a056402018b00b0051e53eb88a3mr17801818edv.25.1693153305289; Sun, 27 Aug 2023 09:21:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPV6:2a01:c23:c0a4:3400:90f1:4994:ce26:fdf9? (dynamic-2a01-0c23-c0a4-3400-90f1-4994-ce26-fdf9.c23.pool.telefonica.de. [2a01:c23:c0a4:3400:90f1:4994:ce26:fdf9]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id e10-20020aa7d7ca000000b005256994e335sm3471728eds.92.2023.08.27.09.21.44 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 27 Aug 2023 09:21:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2023 18:21:43 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.14.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] i2c: i801: Replace acpi_lock with I2C bus lock Content-Language: en-US To: Jean Delvare Cc: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org References: <8f88906f-c7da-eb3a-2f14-0f4d46202517@gmail.com> <20230626195951.1695cda6@endymion.delvare> From: Heiner Kallweit In-Reply-To: <20230626195951.1695cda6@endymion.delvare> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org On 26.06.2023 19:59, Jean Delvare wrote: > Hi Heiner, > > On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 22:33:05 +0100, Heiner Kallweit wrote: >> I2C core ensures in i2c_smbus_xfer() that the I2C bus lock is held when >> calling the smbus_xfer callback. That's i801_access() in our case. >> I think it's safe in general to assume that the I2C bus lock is held >> when the smbus_xfer callback is called. >> Therefore I see no need to define an own mutex. >> >> Signed-off-by: Heiner Kallweit >> --- >> drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-i801.c | 14 ++++---------- >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-i801.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-i801.c >> index d6a0c3b53..7641bd0ac 100644 >> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-i801.c >> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-i801.c >> @@ -289,10 +289,9 @@ struct i801_priv { >> >> /* >> * If set to true the host controller registers are reserved for >> - * ACPI AML use. Protected by acpi_lock. >> + * ACPI AML use. >> */ >> bool acpi_reserved; >> - struct mutex acpi_lock; >> }; >> >> #define FEATURE_SMBUS_PEC BIT(0) >> @@ -871,11 +870,8 @@ static s32 i801_access(struct i2c_adapter *adap, u16 addr, >> int hwpec, ret; >> struct i801_priv *priv = i2c_get_adapdata(adap); >> >> - mutex_lock(&priv->acpi_lock); >> - if (priv->acpi_reserved) { >> - mutex_unlock(&priv->acpi_lock); >> + if (priv->acpi_reserved) >> return -EBUSY; >> - } >> >> pm_runtime_get_sync(&priv->pci_dev->dev); >> >> @@ -916,7 +912,6 @@ static s32 i801_access(struct i2c_adapter *adap, u16 addr, >> >> pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(&priv->pci_dev->dev); >> pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(&priv->pci_dev->dev); >> - mutex_unlock(&priv->acpi_lock); >> return ret; >> } >> >> @@ -1566,7 +1561,7 @@ i801_acpi_io_handler(u32 function, acpi_physical_address address, u32 bits, >> * further access from the driver itself. This device is now owned >> * by the system firmware. >> */ >> - mutex_lock(&priv->acpi_lock); >> + i2c_lock_bus(&priv->adapter, I2C_LOCK_SEGMENT); >> >> if (!priv->acpi_reserved && i801_acpi_is_smbus_ioport(priv, address)) { >> priv->acpi_reserved = true; >> @@ -1586,7 +1581,7 @@ i801_acpi_io_handler(u32 function, acpi_physical_address address, u32 bits, >> else >> status = acpi_os_write_port(address, (u32)*value, bits); >> >> - mutex_unlock(&priv->acpi_lock); >> + i2c_unlock_bus(&priv->adapter, I2C_LOCK_SEGMENT); >> >> return status; >> } >> @@ -1640,7 +1635,6 @@ static int i801_probe(struct pci_dev *dev, const struct pci_device_id *id) >> priv->adapter.dev.parent = &dev->dev; >> ACPI_COMPANION_SET(&priv->adapter.dev, ACPI_COMPANION(&dev->dev)); >> priv->adapter.retries = 3; >> - mutex_init(&priv->acpi_lock); >> >> priv->pci_dev = dev; >> priv->features = id->driver_data; > > Looks reasonable, I also can't see any reason why that wouldn't work. > But locking and power management can be tricky of course. I'll test > this for some time, but I don't think my system actually suffers from > this ACPI resource conflict, so this most probably won't be testing > much in practice. > What's your opinion after more testing? > Thanks,