From: Alison Schofield <amsfield22@gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
Cc: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>,
outreachy-kernel@googlegroups.com, knaack.h@gmx.de,
pmeerw@pmeerw.net, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Michael.Hennerich@analog.com,
gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] iio: core: implement iio_{claim|release}_direct_mode()
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 12:06:56 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160309200654.GA11631@d830.WORKGROUP> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56DB1F3C.8020302@kernel.org>
On Sat, Mar 05, 2016 at 06:02:36PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On 02/03/16 13:28, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> > On 03/01/2016 08:02 PM, Alison Schofield wrote:
> >> It is often the case that the driver wants to be sure a device stays
> >> in direct mode while it is executing a task or series of tasks. To
> >> accomplish this today, the driver performs this sequence: 1) take the
> >> device state lock, 2)verify it is not in a buffered mode, 3) execute
> >> some tasks, and 4) release that lock.
> >>
> >> This patch introduces a pair of helper functions that simplify these
> >> steps and make it more semantically expressive.
> >>
> >> iio_claim_direct_mode()
> >> If the device is not in any buffered mode it is guaranteed
> >> to stay that way until iio_release_direct_mode() is called.
> >>
> >> iio_release_direct_mode()
> >> Release the claim. Device is no longer guaranteed to stay
> >> in direct mode.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Alison Schofield <amsfield22@gmail.com>
> >
> > Looks basically good.
> Agreed - nothing to add from me to what Lars has covered here.
> Nice to 'hide' the accesses to mlock as well as will cut out the desire
> to 'abuse it'. Amusingly we only just 'fixed' the docs to to say this
> element of iio_dev was usable by drivers. Once we have these new functions
> in use throughout the tree, we will want to flip that back again to internal
> only.
>
> Jonathan
>
Thanks for the review (& Lars too)
Thinking about your note about flipping the mlock field back to
INTERNAL (from DRIVER), this change, even when it's applied to
all relevant instances, doesn't get us all the way there.
While these claim/release functions will remove direct access to mlock
where a driver wants to hold direct mode, the drivers are grabbing
mlock for other reasons also. (too many reasons/instances for me to
quickly understand or summarize)
I'm willing to look at it further and comment if that's helpful.
alisons
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-09 20:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-01 18:58 [RFC PATCH 0/2] iio: introduce iio_{claim|release}_direct_mode() Alison Schofield
2016-03-01 19:02 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] iio: core: implement iio_{claim|release}_direct_mode() Alison Schofield
2016-03-02 13:28 ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2016-03-05 18:02 ` Jonathan Cameron
2016-03-09 20:06 ` Alison Schofield [this message]
2016-03-09 20:23 ` Jonathan Cameron
2016-03-01 19:03 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] staging: iio: adc7192: use iio_{claim|release}_direct_mode() Alison Schofield
2016-03-09 19:25 ` [RFC PATCH v2 0/2] iio: introduce iio_device_{claim|release}_direct_mode() Alison Schofield
2016-03-09 19:30 ` [RFC PATCH v2 1/2] iio: core: implement iio_device_{claim|release}_direct_mode() Alison Schofield
2016-03-12 11:18 ` Jonathan Cameron
2016-03-09 19:30 ` [RFC PATCH v2 2/2] staging: iio: ad7192: use iio_device_{claim|release}_direct_mode() Alison Schofield
2016-03-12 11:21 ` Jonathan Cameron
2016-03-12 11:25 ` Jonathan Cameron
2016-03-12 11:16 ` [RFC PATCH v2 0/2] iio: introduce iio_device_{claim|release}_direct_mode() 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=20160309200654.GA11631@d830.WORKGROUP \
--to=amsfield22@gmail.com \
--cc=Michael.Hennerich@analog.com \
--cc=devel@driverdev.osuosl.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jic23@kernel.org \
--cc=knaack.h@gmx.de \
--cc=lars@metafoo.de \
--cc=linux-iio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=outreachy-kernel@googlegroups.com \
--cc=pmeerw@pmeerw.net \
/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).