From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: Paul Osmialowski <p.osmialowsk@samsung.com>
Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Kukjin Kim <kgene@kernel.org>,
linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/3] regmap: Use the enhancement of i2c API to address circular dependency problem
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 19:25:57 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150119192557.GI2809@sirena.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1501191031080.13777@AMDC1262.digital.local>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2944 bytes --]
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 10:31:22AM +0100, Paul Osmialowski wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2015, Mark Brown wrote:
> >What I'm saying is that I want to understand this change from a point of
> >view that isn't tied to I2C - at the regmap level what is this doing,
> From the regmap point of view, it allows its functions to have a chance to
> prepare transfer medium for (synchronous) transfer (no matter what bus
> handles it) before it actually start to happen (then unprepare it when it's
> done) and crucially before any lock is obtained in functions like
> regmap_write(), regmap_read() or regmap_update_bits.
OK, so that's what should go in the changelog (along with an explanation
of why this preparation is required at all) - but I still don't see the
async bit of this I'm afraid.
> Maybe adding a pair of callbacks (map->reg_write_sync_prepared(),
> map->reg_read_sync_prepared()) would make situation clearer.
No, I don't think so - it'd just complicate the callers.
> >I2C is a bus that has some properties which you're saying needs some
> >changes, what are those properties and those changes?
> I'm not saying I2C as a bus requires changes. What I'm saying is that I2C
> API can be extended to allow more detailed control on what happens with the
> transfer.
My point here is that your explanation is in terms of I2C specifics and
not really at a generic regmap level.
> >Can you be more specific please? If something needs preparing it seems
> >like it'd need preparing over an async transaction just as much as over
> >a synchronous one.
> Even with those preparation and unpreparation stages, this transfer is still
> synchronous. For example, it starts when regmap_read() starts and ends when
> regmap_read() ends. Nothing is queued or deferred. Namely, when
> max_gen_clk_unprepare() function calls regmap_update_bits() it expects that
> when regmap_update_bits() returned, no outstanding transfer are happening
> nor waiting to proceed. Everything must be completed before returning to
> max_gen_clk_unprepare().
That doesn't address my question - all you're saying is that in a
synchronous call path things are synchronous which is fine but obviously
regmap supports async I/O too.
> >Not in this pattern where the caller needs to check too.
> I don't persist on that. Apparently, you're the author of this file, though
> regmap_init() function was later expanded by other guys. They never assigned
> bus callback function pointers directly to map operation callbacks. It is
> possible to replace 'map->reg_prepare_sync_io = regmap_bus_prepare_sync_io'
> with 'map->reg_prepare_sync_io = map->bus->prepare_sync_io' - this will
> compile and this will work properly. But IMHO it wouldn't match with what
> the others did.
If you look at the other callbacks they're doing other things beyond
simply forwarding the functions on. That's the problem here, the
functions just add a layer of indirection and nothing else.
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-19 19:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-01-16 14:39 [RFC 1/3] i2c: Enhancement of i2c API to address circular lock dependency problem Paul Osmialowski
2015-01-16 14:39 ` [RFC 2/3] regmap: Use the enhancement of i2c API to address circular " Paul Osmialowski
2015-01-16 16:23 ` Mark Brown
2015-01-16 17:36 ` Paul Osmialowski
2015-01-16 18:36 ` Mark Brown
2015-01-19 9:31 ` Paul Osmialowski
2015-01-19 19:25 ` Mark Brown [this message]
2015-01-20 11:14 ` Paul Osmialowski
2015-01-27 18:12 ` Mark Brown
2015-01-16 14:39 ` [RFC 3/3] i2c: s3c2410: Adopt i2c-s3c2410 driver for new enhancement of i2c API Paul Osmialowski
2015-01-16 16:28 ` Mark Brown
2015-01-18 6:30 ` [RFC 1/3] i2c: Enhancement of i2c API to address circular lock dependency problem Tomasz Figa
2015-01-18 10:54 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2015-01-18 13:41 ` Mark Brown
2015-02-25 19:47 ` Mike Turquette
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=20150119192557.GI2809@sirena.org.uk \
--to=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=kgene@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=p.osmialowsk@samsung.com \
--cc=wsa@the-dreams.de \
/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