* [PATCH] staging: iio: ade7753: replace mlock with driver private lock @ 2017-03-12 13:32 simran singhal 2017-03-12 18:33 ` [Outreachy kernel] " Alison Schofield 2017-03-13 12:00 ` Lars-Peter Clausen 0 siblings, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: simran singhal @ 2017-03-12 13:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: lars Cc: Michael Hennerich, Jonathan Cameron, Hartmut Knaack, Pete Meerwald-Stadler, Greg Kroah-Hartman, linux-iio, devel, linux-kernel, outreachy-kernel The IIO subsystem is redefining iio_dev->mlock to be used by the IIO core only for protecting device operating mode changes. ie. Changes between INDIO_DIRECT_MODE, INDIO_BUFFER_* modes. In this driver, mlock was being used to protect hardware state changes. Replace it with a lock in the devices global data. Fix some coding style issues related to white space also. Signed-off-by: simran singhal <singhalsimran0@gmail.com> --- drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c | 14 ++++++++------ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c b/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c index dfd8b71..ca99d82 100644 --- a/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c +++ b/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c @@ -81,12 +81,14 @@ * @tx: transmit buffer * @rx: receive buffer * @buf_lock: mutex to protect tx and rx + * @lock: protect sensor state **/ struct ade7753_state { - struct spi_device *us; - struct mutex buf_lock; - u8 tx[ADE7753_MAX_TX] ____cacheline_aligned; - u8 rx[ADE7753_MAX_RX]; + struct spi_device *us; + struct mutex buf_lock; + struct mutex lock; /* protect sensor state */ + u8 tx[ADE7753_MAX_TX] ____cacheline_aligned; + u8 rx[ADE7753_MAX_RX]; }; static int ade7753_spi_write_reg_8(struct device *dev, @@ -484,7 +486,7 @@ static ssize_t ade7753_write_frequency(struct device *dev, if (!val) return -EINVAL; - mutex_lock(&indio_dev->mlock); + mutex_lock(&st->lock); t = 27900 / val; if (t > 0) @@ -505,7 +507,7 @@ static ssize_t ade7753_write_frequency(struct device *dev, ret = ade7753_spi_write_reg_16(dev, ADE7753_MODE, reg); out: - mutex_unlock(&indio_dev->mlock); + mutex_unlock(&st->lock); return ret ? ret : len; } -- 2.7.4 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH] staging: iio: ade7753: replace mlock with driver private lock 2017-03-12 13:32 [PATCH] staging: iio: ade7753: replace mlock with driver private lock simran singhal @ 2017-03-12 18:33 ` Alison Schofield 2017-03-13 3:58 ` SIMRAN SINGHAL 2017-03-13 12:00 ` Lars-Peter Clausen 1 sibling, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Alison Schofield @ 2017-03-12 18:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: simran singhal Cc: lars, Michael Hennerich, Jonathan Cameron, Hartmut Knaack, Pete Meerwald-Stadler, Greg Kroah-Hartman, linux-iio, devel, linux-kernel, outreachy-kernel On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 07:02:50PM +0530, simran singhal wrote: > The IIO subsystem is redefining iio_dev->mlock to be used by > the IIO core only for protecting device operating mode changes. > ie. Changes between INDIO_DIRECT_MODE, INDIO_BUFFER_* modes. > > In this driver, mlock was being used to protect hardware state > changes. Replace it with a lock in the devices global data. > > Fix some coding style issues related to white space also. > > Signed-off-by: simran singhal <singhalsimran0@gmail.com> Hi Simran, This looks good to me. Let's see what the reviewers say. I think the white space stuff is ok, since it was right where you were editing. alisons > --- > drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c | 14 ++++++++------ > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c b/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c > index dfd8b71..ca99d82 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c > @@ -81,12 +81,14 @@ > * @tx: transmit buffer > * @rx: receive buffer > * @buf_lock: mutex to protect tx and rx > + * @lock: protect sensor state > **/ > struct ade7753_state { > - struct spi_device *us; > - struct mutex buf_lock; > - u8 tx[ADE7753_MAX_TX] ____cacheline_aligned; > - u8 rx[ADE7753_MAX_RX]; > + struct spi_device *us; > + struct mutex buf_lock; > + struct mutex lock; /* protect sensor state */ > + u8 tx[ADE7753_MAX_TX] ____cacheline_aligned; > + u8 rx[ADE7753_MAX_RX]; > }; > > static int ade7753_spi_write_reg_8(struct device *dev, > @@ -484,7 +486,7 @@ static ssize_t ade7753_write_frequency(struct device *dev, > if (!val) > return -EINVAL; > > - mutex_lock(&indio_dev->mlock); > + mutex_lock(&st->lock); > > t = 27900 / val; > if (t > 0) > @@ -505,7 +507,7 @@ static ssize_t ade7753_write_frequency(struct device *dev, > ret = ade7753_spi_write_reg_16(dev, ADE7753_MODE, reg); > > out: > - mutex_unlock(&indio_dev->mlock); > + mutex_unlock(&st->lock); > > return ret ? ret : len; > } > -- > 2.7.4 > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "outreachy-kernel" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to outreachy-kernel+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to outreachy-kernel@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/outreachy-kernel/20170312133250.GA7772%40singhal-Inspiron-5558. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH] staging: iio: ade7753: replace mlock with driver private lock 2017-03-12 18:33 ` [Outreachy kernel] " Alison Schofield @ 2017-03-13 3:58 ` SIMRAN SINGHAL 2017-03-13 5:29 ` Alison Schofield 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: SIMRAN SINGHAL @ 2017-03-13 3:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alison Schofield Cc: Lars-Peter Clausen, Michael Hennerich, Jonathan Cameron, Hartmut Knaack, Pete Meerwald-Stadler, Greg Kroah-Hartman, linux-iio, devel, linux-kernel, outreachy-kernel On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 12:03 AM, Alison Schofield <amsfield22@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 07:02:50PM +0530, simran singhal wrote: >> The IIO subsystem is redefining iio_dev->mlock to be used by >> the IIO core only for protecting device operating mode changes. >> ie. Changes between INDIO_DIRECT_MODE, INDIO_BUFFER_* modes. >> >> In this driver, mlock was being used to protect hardware state >> changes. Replace it with a lock in the devices global data. >> >> Fix some coding style issues related to white space also. >> >> Signed-off-by: simran singhal <singhalsimran0@gmail.com> > > Hi Simran, This looks good to me. Let's see what the > reviewers say. I think the white space stuff is ok, > since it was right where you were editing. > alisons > Alison, so sending this patch here on outreachy mailing list is fine. Still confuse :P >> --- >> drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c | 14 ++++++++------ >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c b/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c >> index dfd8b71..ca99d82 100644 >> --- a/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c >> +++ b/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c >> @@ -81,12 +81,14 @@ >> * @tx: transmit buffer >> * @rx: receive buffer >> * @buf_lock: mutex to protect tx and rx >> + * @lock: protect sensor state >> **/ >> struct ade7753_state { >> - struct spi_device *us; >> - struct mutex buf_lock; >> - u8 tx[ADE7753_MAX_TX] ____cacheline_aligned; >> - u8 rx[ADE7753_MAX_RX]; >> + struct spi_device *us; >> + struct mutex buf_lock; >> + struct mutex lock; /* protect sensor state */ >> + u8 tx[ADE7753_MAX_TX] ____cacheline_aligned; >> + u8 rx[ADE7753_MAX_RX]; >> }; >> >> static int ade7753_spi_write_reg_8(struct device *dev, >> @@ -484,7 +486,7 @@ static ssize_t ade7753_write_frequency(struct device *dev, >> if (!val) >> return -EINVAL; >> >> - mutex_lock(&indio_dev->mlock); >> + mutex_lock(&st->lock); >> >> t = 27900 / val; >> if (t > 0) >> @@ -505,7 +507,7 @@ static ssize_t ade7753_write_frequency(struct device *dev, >> ret = ade7753_spi_write_reg_16(dev, ADE7753_MODE, reg); >> >> out: >> - mutex_unlock(&indio_dev->mlock); >> + mutex_unlock(&st->lock); >> >> return ret ? ret : len; >> } >> -- >> 2.7.4 >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "outreachy-kernel" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to outreachy-kernel+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to outreachy-kernel@googlegroups.com. >> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/outreachy-kernel/20170312133250.GA7772%40singhal-Inspiron-5558. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH] staging: iio: ade7753: replace mlock with driver private lock 2017-03-13 3:58 ` SIMRAN SINGHAL @ 2017-03-13 5:29 ` Alison Schofield 0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Alison Schofield @ 2017-03-13 5:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: SIMRAN SINGHAL Cc: Lars-Peter Clausen, Michael Hennerich, Jonathan Cameron, Hartmut Knaack, Pete Meerwald-Stadler, Greg Kroah-Hartman, linux-iio, devel, linux-kernel, outreachy-kernel On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 09:28:34AM +0530, SIMRAN SINGHAL wrote: > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 12:03 AM, Alison Schofield <amsfield22@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 07:02:50PM +0530, simran singhal wrote: > >> The IIO subsystem is redefining iio_dev->mlock to be used by > >> the IIO core only for protecting device operating mode changes. > >> ie. Changes between INDIO_DIRECT_MODE, INDIO_BUFFER_* modes. > >> > >> In this driver, mlock was being used to protect hardware state > >> changes. Replace it with a lock in the devices global data. > >> > >> Fix some coding style issues related to white space also. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: simran singhal <singhalsimran0@gmail.com> > > > > Hi Simran, This looks good to me. Let's see what the > > reviewers say. I think the white space stuff is ok, > > since it was right where you were editing. > > alisons > > > Alison, so sending this patch here on outreachy mailing list is fine. > Still confuse :P You are OK. You sent it to everyone suggested in the Task Description. This patch was sent before I posted the Task Description. I'm assuming that since then you've found the posted Task: https://kernelnewbies.org/IIO_tasks Find Coding Task 2 --> "PATCHES need to be sent to all of:" > > >> --- > >> drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c | 14 ++++++++------ > >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c b/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c > >> index dfd8b71..ca99d82 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c > >> +++ b/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c > >> @@ -81,12 +81,14 @@ > >> * @tx: transmit buffer > >> * @rx: receive buffer > >> * @buf_lock: mutex to protect tx and rx > >> + * @lock: protect sensor state > >> **/ > >> struct ade7753_state { > >> - struct spi_device *us; > >> - struct mutex buf_lock; > >> - u8 tx[ADE7753_MAX_TX] ____cacheline_aligned; > >> - u8 rx[ADE7753_MAX_RX]; > >> + struct spi_device *us; > >> + struct mutex buf_lock; > >> + struct mutex lock; /* protect sensor state */ > >> + u8 tx[ADE7753_MAX_TX] ____cacheline_aligned; > >> + u8 rx[ADE7753_MAX_RX]; > >> }; > >> > >> static int ade7753_spi_write_reg_8(struct device *dev, > >> @@ -484,7 +486,7 @@ static ssize_t ade7753_write_frequency(struct device *dev, > >> if (!val) > >> return -EINVAL; > >> > >> - mutex_lock(&indio_dev->mlock); > >> + mutex_lock(&st->lock); > >> > >> t = 27900 / val; > >> if (t > 0) > >> @@ -505,7 +507,7 @@ static ssize_t ade7753_write_frequency(struct device *dev, > >> ret = ade7753_spi_write_reg_16(dev, ADE7753_MODE, reg); > >> > >> out: > >> - mutex_unlock(&indio_dev->mlock); > >> + mutex_unlock(&st->lock); > >> > >> return ret ? ret : len; > >> } > >> -- > >> 2.7.4 > >> > >> -- > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "outreachy-kernel" group. > >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to outreachy-kernel+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > >> To post to this group, send email to outreachy-kernel@googlegroups.com. > >> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/outreachy-kernel/20170312133250.GA7772%40singhal-Inspiron-5558. > >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] staging: iio: ade7753: replace mlock with driver private lock 2017-03-12 13:32 [PATCH] staging: iio: ade7753: replace mlock with driver private lock simran singhal 2017-03-12 18:33 ` [Outreachy kernel] " Alison Schofield @ 2017-03-13 12:00 ` Lars-Peter Clausen 2017-03-13 12:33 ` SIMRAN SINGHAL ` (2 more replies) 1 sibling, 3 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Lars-Peter Clausen @ 2017-03-13 12:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: simran singhal Cc: Michael Hennerich, Jonathan Cameron, Hartmut Knaack, Pete Meerwald-Stadler, Greg Kroah-Hartman, linux-iio, devel, linux-kernel, outreachy-kernel On 03/12/2017 02:32 PM, simran singhal wrote: > The IIO subsystem is redefining iio_dev->mlock to be used by > the IIO core only for protecting device operating mode changes. > ie. Changes between INDIO_DIRECT_MODE, INDIO_BUFFER_* modes. > > In this driver, mlock was being used to protect hardware state > changes. Replace it with a lock in the devices global data. > > Fix some coding style issues related to white space also. > > Signed-off-by: simran singhal <singhalsimran0@gmail.com> > --- > drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c | 14 ++++++++------ > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c b/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c > index dfd8b71..ca99d82 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c > @@ -81,12 +81,14 @@ > * @tx: transmit buffer > * @rx: receive buffer > * @buf_lock: mutex to protect tx and rx > + * @lock: protect sensor state It might make sense to reuse the existing lock which currently protects the read/write functions. You can do this by introducing a variant of ade7753_spi_{read,write}_reg_16() that does not take a lock and use these to implement the read-modify-write cycle in a protected section. Looking through the driver there seem to be other places as well that do read-modify-write that should be protected by a lock, but currently are not. This might be a good task. > **/ > struct ade7753_state { > - struct spi_device *us; > - struct mutex buf_lock; > - u8 tx[ADE7753_MAX_TX] ____cacheline_aligned; > - u8 rx[ADE7753_MAX_RX]; > + struct spi_device *us; > + struct mutex buf_lock; > + struct mutex lock; /* protect sensor state */ > + u8 tx[ADE7753_MAX_TX] ____cacheline_aligned; > + u8 rx[ADE7753_MAX_RX]; > }; > > static int ade7753_spi_write_reg_8(struct device *dev, > @@ -484,7 +486,7 @@ static ssize_t ade7753_write_frequency(struct device *dev, > if (!val) > return -EINVAL; > > - mutex_lock(&indio_dev->mlock); > + mutex_lock(&st->lock); > > t = 27900 / val; > if (t > 0) > @@ -505,7 +507,7 @@ static ssize_t ade7753_write_frequency(struct device *dev, > ret = ade7753_spi_write_reg_16(dev, ADE7753_MODE, reg); > > out: > - mutex_unlock(&indio_dev->mlock); > + mutex_unlock(&st->lock); > > return ret ? ret : len; > } > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] staging: iio: ade7753: replace mlock with driver private lock 2017-03-13 12:00 ` Lars-Peter Clausen @ 2017-03-13 12:33 ` SIMRAN SINGHAL 2017-03-13 13:34 ` Lars-Peter Clausen 2017-03-17 9:32 ` [Outreachy kernel] " Gargi Sharma 2017-03-19 18:02 ` Gargi Sharma 2 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: SIMRAN SINGHAL @ 2017-03-13 12:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Lars-Peter Clausen Cc: Michael Hennerich, Jonathan Cameron, Hartmut Knaack, Pete Meerwald-Stadler, Greg Kroah-Hartman, linux-iio, devel, linux-kernel, outreachy-kernel On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de> wrote: > On 03/12/2017 02:32 PM, simran singhal wrote: >> The IIO subsystem is redefining iio_dev->mlock to be used by >> the IIO core only for protecting device operating mode changes. >> ie. Changes between INDIO_DIRECT_MODE, INDIO_BUFFER_* modes. >> >> In this driver, mlock was being used to protect hardware state >> changes. Replace it with a lock in the devices global data. >> >> Fix some coding style issues related to white space also. >> >> Signed-off-by: simran singhal <singhalsimran0@gmail.com> >> --- >> drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c | 14 ++++++++------ >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c b/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c >> index dfd8b71..ca99d82 100644 >> --- a/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c >> +++ b/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c >> @@ -81,12 +81,14 @@ >> * @tx: transmit buffer >> * @rx: receive buffer >> * @buf_lock: mutex to protect tx and rx >> + * @lock: protect sensor state > > It might make sense to reuse the existing lock which currently protects the > read/write functions. You can do this by introducing a variant of > ade7753_spi_{read,write}_reg_16() that does not take a lock and use these to > implement the read-modify-write cycle in a protected section. > > Looking through the driver there seem to be other places as well that do > read-modify-write that should be protected by a lock, but currently are not. > This might be a good task. > Are you trying to say that their is no need of introducing "lock", I can using "buf_lock" only. Thanks! >> **/ >> struct ade7753_state { >> - struct spi_device *us; >> - struct mutex buf_lock; >> - u8 tx[ADE7753_MAX_TX] ____cacheline_aligned; >> - u8 rx[ADE7753_MAX_RX]; >> + struct spi_device *us; >> + struct mutex buf_lock; >> + struct mutex lock; /* protect sensor state */ >> + u8 tx[ADE7753_MAX_TX] ____cacheline_aligned; >> + u8 rx[ADE7753_MAX_RX]; >> }; >> >> static int ade7753_spi_write_reg_8(struct device *dev, >> @@ -484,7 +486,7 @@ static ssize_t ade7753_write_frequency(struct device *dev, >> if (!val) >> return -EINVAL; >> >> - mutex_lock(&indio_dev->mlock); >> + mutex_lock(&st->lock); >> >> t = 27900 / val; >> if (t > 0) >> @@ -505,7 +507,7 @@ static ssize_t ade7753_write_frequency(struct device *dev, >> ret = ade7753_spi_write_reg_16(dev, ADE7753_MODE, reg); >> >> out: >> - mutex_unlock(&indio_dev->mlock); >> + mutex_unlock(&st->lock); >> >> return ret ? ret : len; >> } >> > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] staging: iio: ade7753: replace mlock with driver private lock 2017-03-13 12:33 ` SIMRAN SINGHAL @ 2017-03-13 13:34 ` Lars-Peter Clausen 0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Lars-Peter Clausen @ 2017-03-13 13:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: SIMRAN SINGHAL Cc: Michael Hennerich, Jonathan Cameron, Hartmut Knaack, Pete Meerwald-Stadler, Greg Kroah-Hartman, linux-iio, devel, linux-kernel, outreachy-kernel On 03/13/2017 01:33 PM, SIMRAN SINGHAL wrote: > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de> wrote: >> On 03/12/2017 02:32 PM, simran singhal wrote: >>> The IIO subsystem is redefining iio_dev->mlock to be used by >>> the IIO core only for protecting device operating mode changes. >>> ie. Changes between INDIO_DIRECT_MODE, INDIO_BUFFER_* modes. >>> >>> In this driver, mlock was being used to protect hardware state >>> changes. Replace it with a lock in the devices global data. >>> >>> Fix some coding style issues related to white space also. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: simran singhal <singhalsimran0@gmail.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c | 14 ++++++++------ >>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c b/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c >>> index dfd8b71..ca99d82 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c >>> +++ b/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c >>> @@ -81,12 +81,14 @@ >>> * @tx: transmit buffer >>> * @rx: receive buffer >>> * @buf_lock: mutex to protect tx and rx >>> + * @lock: protect sensor state >> >> It might make sense to reuse the existing lock which currently protects the >> read/write functions. You can do this by introducing a variant of >> ade7753_spi_{read,write}_reg_16() that does not take a lock and use these to >> implement the read-modify-write cycle in a protected section. >> >> Looking through the driver there seem to be other places as well that do >> read-modify-write that should be protected by a lock, but currently are not. >> This might be a good task. >> > > Are you trying to say that their is no need of introducing "lock", > I can using "buf_lock" only. Yes, there should be no need for two locks. But you need to slightly refactor the code to avoid taking the same lock nested. > > Thanks! > >>> **/ >>> struct ade7753_state { >>> - struct spi_device *us; >>> - struct mutex buf_lock; >>> - u8 tx[ADE7753_MAX_TX] ____cacheline_aligned; >>> - u8 rx[ADE7753_MAX_RX]; >>> + struct spi_device *us; >>> + struct mutex buf_lock; >>> + struct mutex lock; /* protect sensor state */ >>> + u8 tx[ADE7753_MAX_TX] ____cacheline_aligned; >>> + u8 rx[ADE7753_MAX_RX]; >>> }; >>> >>> static int ade7753_spi_write_reg_8(struct device *dev, >>> @@ -484,7 +486,7 @@ static ssize_t ade7753_write_frequency(struct device *dev, >>> if (!val) >>> return -EINVAL; >>> >>> - mutex_lock(&indio_dev->mlock); >>> + mutex_lock(&st->lock); >>> >>> t = 27900 / val; >>> if (t > 0) >>> @@ -505,7 +507,7 @@ static ssize_t ade7753_write_frequency(struct device *dev, >>> ret = ade7753_spi_write_reg_16(dev, ADE7753_MODE, reg); >>> >>> out: >>> - mutex_unlock(&indio_dev->mlock); >>> + mutex_unlock(&st->lock); >>> >>> return ret ? ret : len; >>> } >>> >> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [Outreachy kernel] Re: [PATCH] staging: iio: ade7753: replace mlock with driver private lock 2017-03-13 12:00 ` Lars-Peter Clausen 2017-03-13 12:33 ` SIMRAN SINGHAL @ 2017-03-17 9:32 ` Gargi Sharma 2017-03-19 10:31 ` Jonathan Cameron 2017-03-19 18:02 ` Gargi Sharma 2 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Gargi Sharma @ 2017-03-17 9:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Lars-Peter Clausen Cc: simran singhal, Michael Hennerich, Jonathan Cameron, Hartmut Knaack, Pete Meerwald-Stadler, Greg Kroah-Hartman, linux-iio, devel, linux-kernel, outreachy-kernel On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de> wrote: > > On 03/12/2017 02:32 PM, simran singhal wrote: > > The IIO subsystem is redefining iio_dev->mlock to be used by > > the IIO core only for protecting device operating mode changes. > > ie. Changes between INDIO_DIRECT_MODE, INDIO_BUFFER_* modes. > > > > In this driver, mlock was being used to protect hardware state > > changes. Replace it with a lock in the devices global data. > > > > Fix some coding style issues related to white space also. > > > > Signed-off-by: simran singhal <singhalsimran0@gmail.com> > > --- > > drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c | 14 ++++++++------ > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c b/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c > > index dfd8b71..ca99d82 100644 > > --- a/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c > > +++ b/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c > > @@ -81,12 +81,14 @@ > > * @tx: transmit buffer > > * @rx: receive buffer > > * @buf_lock: mutex to protect tx and rx > > + * @lock: protect sensor state > > It might make sense to reuse the existing lock which currently protects the > read/write functions. You can do this by introducing a variant of > ade7753_spi_{read,write}_reg_16() that does not take a lock and use these to > implement the read-modify-write cycle in a protected section. There are other read/write functions for example, ade7753_spi_{read/write}_reg_8 that use the mutex as well. Should a variant of these functions be introduced as well? Also, how does one go about implementing RMW inside a protected section. > > Looking through the driver there seem to be other places as well that do > read-modify-write that should be protected by a lock, but currently are not. > This might be a good task. Am I right in understanding that we want to introduce mutex lock for writes in other drivers as well? Thanks, Gargi > > > **/ > > struct ade7753_state { > > - struct spi_device *us; > > - struct mutex buf_lock; > > - u8 tx[ADE7753_MAX_TX] ____cacheline_aligned; > > - u8 rx[ADE7753_MAX_RX]; > > + struct spi_device *us; > > + struct mutex buf_lock; > > + struct mutex lock; /* protect sensor state */ > > + u8 tx[ADE7753_MAX_TX] ____cacheline_aligned; > > + u8 rx[ADE7753_MAX_RX]; > > }; > > > > static int ade7753_spi_write_reg_8(struct device *dev, > > @@ -484,7 +486,7 @@ static ssize_t ade7753_write_frequency(struct device *dev, > > if (!val) > > return -EINVAL; > > > > - mutex_lock(&indio_dev->mlock); > > + mutex_lock(&st->lock); > > > > t = 27900 / val; > > if (t > 0) > > @@ -505,7 +507,7 @@ static ssize_t ade7753_write_frequency(struct device *dev, > > ret = ade7753_spi_write_reg_16(dev, ADE7753_MODE, reg); > > > > out: > > - mutex_unlock(&indio_dev->mlock); > > + mutex_unlock(&st->lock); > > > > return ret ? ret : len; > > } > > > > -- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [Outreachy kernel] Re: [PATCH] staging: iio: ade7753: replace mlock with driver private lock 2017-03-17 9:32 ` [Outreachy kernel] " Gargi Sharma @ 2017-03-19 10:31 ` Jonathan Cameron 2017-03-19 13:16 ` Gargi Sharma 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Jonathan Cameron @ 2017-03-19 10:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gargi Sharma, Lars-Peter Clausen Cc: simran singhal, Michael Hennerich, Hartmut Knaack, Pete Meerwald-Stadler, Greg Kroah-Hartman, linux-iio, devel, linux-kernel, outreachy-kernel On 17/03/17 09:32, Gargi Sharma wrote: > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de> wrote: >> >> On 03/12/2017 02:32 PM, simran singhal wrote: >>> The IIO subsystem is redefining iio_dev->mlock to be used by >>> the IIO core only for protecting device operating mode changes. >>> ie. Changes between INDIO_DIRECT_MODE, INDIO_BUFFER_* modes. >>> >>> In this driver, mlock was being used to protect hardware state >>> changes. Replace it with a lock in the devices global data. >>> >>> Fix some coding style issues related to white space also. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: simran singhal <singhalsimran0@gmail.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c | 14 ++++++++------ >>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c b/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c >>> index dfd8b71..ca99d82 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c >>> +++ b/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c >>> @@ -81,12 +81,14 @@ >>> * @tx: transmit buffer >>> * @rx: receive buffer >>> * @buf_lock: mutex to protect tx and rx >>> + * @lock: protect sensor state >> >> It might make sense to reuse the existing lock which currently protects the >> read/write functions. You can do this by introducing a variant of >> ade7753_spi_{read,write}_reg_16() that does not take a lock and use these to >> implement the read-modify-write cycle in a protected section. > > There are other read/write functions for example, > ade7753_spi_{read/write}_reg_8 that use the mutex as well. Should a > variant of these functions be introduced as well? Also, how does one > go about implementing RMW inside a protected section. Hmm. Simran has also been progressing with patches for this. You raise a good question. There are other read/modify/write sequences in the driver. They don't have the same issue with potentially deadlocking against the buf lock as they are all using the spi subsystems provisions for small write/read cycles where buffer protection is handled internally. So let us address the cases in turn: static int ade7753_reset(struct device *dev) { u16 val; int ret; ret = ade7753_spi_read_reg_16(dev, ADE7753_MODE, &val); if (ret) return ret; val |= BIT(6); /* Software Chip Reset */ return ade7753_spi_write_reg_16(dev, ADE7753_MODE, val); } This is only called in the device initialization. At that point we should be fine in assuming no parallel calls. Crucial point is it is before the call to iio_device_register which exposes the userspace interfaces. static int ade7753_set_irq(struct device *dev, bool enable) { int ret; u8 irqen; ret = ade7753_spi_read_reg_8(dev, ADE7753_IRQEN, &irqen); if (ret) goto error_ret; if (enable) irqen |= BIT(3); /* Enables an interrupt when a data is * present in the waveform register */ else irqen &= ~BIT(3); ret = ade7753_spi_write_reg_8(dev, ADE7753_IRQEN, irqen); error_ret: return ret; } This one is actually safe because it is the only function that modifies that particular register. /* Power down the device */ static int ade7753_stop_device(struct device *dev) { u16 val; int ret; ret = ade7753_spi_read_reg_16(dev, ADE7753_MODE, &val); if (ret) return ret; val |= BIT(4); /* AD converters can be turned off */ return ade7753_spi_write_reg_16(dev, ADE7753_MODE, val); } Only called in remove (after userspace interfaces have been removed by the iio_device_unregister call so also should not be running concurrently with much else. So I think all the other cases are safe. Perhaps it would have been better to have had a lock around them, purely to make the code more resilient against future changes though. Probably a job to do as part of a larger scale pile of work on that driver rather than as a one off patch. Jonathan > > >> >> Looking through the driver there seem to be other places as well that do >> read-modify-write that should be protected by a lock, but currently are not. >> This might be a good task. > > Am I right in understanding that we want to introduce mutex lock for > writes in other drivers as well? > > Thanks, > Gargi >> >>> **/ >>> struct ade7753_state { >>> - struct spi_device *us; >>> - struct mutex buf_lock; >>> - u8 tx[ADE7753_MAX_TX] ____cacheline_aligned; >>> - u8 rx[ADE7753_MAX_RX]; >>> + struct spi_device *us; >>> + struct mutex buf_lock; >>> + struct mutex lock; /* protect sensor state */ >>> + u8 tx[ADE7753_MAX_TX] ____cacheline_aligned; >>> + u8 rx[ADE7753_MAX_RX]; >>> }; >>> >>> static int ade7753_spi_write_reg_8(struct device *dev, >>> @@ -484,7 +486,7 @@ static ssize_t ade7753_write_frequency(struct device *dev, >>> if (!val) >>> return -EINVAL; >>> >>> - mutex_lock(&indio_dev->mlock); >>> + mutex_lock(&st->lock); >>> >>> t = 27900 / val; >>> if (t > 0) >>> @@ -505,7 +507,7 @@ static ssize_t ade7753_write_frequency(struct device *dev, >>> ret = ade7753_spi_write_reg_16(dev, ADE7753_MODE, reg); >>> >>> out: >>> - mutex_unlock(&indio_dev->mlock); >>> + mutex_unlock(&st->lock); >>> >>> return ret ? ret : len; >>> } >>> >> >> -- > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [Outreachy kernel] Re: [PATCH] staging: iio: ade7753: replace mlock with driver private lock 2017-03-19 10:31 ` Jonathan Cameron @ 2017-03-19 13:16 ` Gargi Sharma 2017-03-19 17:08 ` Jonathan Cameron 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Gargi Sharma @ 2017-03-19 13:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jonathan Cameron Cc: Lars-Peter Clausen, simran singhal, Michael Hennerich, Hartmut Knaack, Pete Meerwald-Stadler, Greg Kroah-Hartman, linux-iio, devel, linux-kernel, outreachy-kernel On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org> wrote: > On 17/03/17 09:32, Gargi Sharma wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de> wrote: >>> >>> On 03/12/2017 02:32 PM, simran singhal wrote: >>>> The IIO subsystem is redefining iio_dev->mlock to be used by >>>> the IIO core only for protecting device operating mode changes. >>>> ie. Changes between INDIO_DIRECT_MODE, INDIO_BUFFER_* modes. >>>> >>>> In this driver, mlock was being used to protect hardware state >>>> changes. Replace it with a lock in the devices global data. >>>> >>>> Fix some coding style issues related to white space also. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: simran singhal <singhalsimran0@gmail.com> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c | 14 ++++++++------ >>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c b/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c >>>> index dfd8b71..ca99d82 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c >>>> @@ -81,12 +81,14 @@ >>>> * @tx: transmit buffer >>>> * @rx: receive buffer >>>> * @buf_lock: mutex to protect tx and rx >>>> + * @lock: protect sensor state >>> >>> It might make sense to reuse the existing lock which currently protects the >>> read/write functions. You can do this by introducing a variant of >>> ade7753_spi_{read,write}_reg_16() that does not take a lock and use these to >>> implement the read-modify-write cycle in a protected section. >> >> There are other read/write functions for example, >> ade7753_spi_{read/write}_reg_8 that use the mutex as well. Should a >> variant of these functions be introduced as well? Also, how does one >> go about implementing RMW inside a protected section. > Hmm. Simran has also been progressing with patches for this. > I was trying to work through a patch for ade7754. So ran into the same problem :) > You raise a good question. There are other read/modify/write sequences in > the driver. They don't have the same issue with potentially deadlocking > against the buf lock as they are all using the spi subsystems provisions > for small write/read cycles where buffer protection is handled internally. > > So let us address the cases in turn: > > static int ade7753_reset(struct device *dev) > { > u16 val; > int ret; > > ret = ade7753_spi_read_reg_16(dev, ADE7753_MODE, &val); > if (ret) > return ret; > > val |= BIT(6); /* Software Chip Reset */ > > return ade7753_spi_write_reg_16(dev, ADE7753_MODE, val); > } > This is only called in the device initialization. At that point > we should be fine in assuming no parallel calls. Crucial point > is it is before the call to iio_device_register which exposes > the userspace interfaces. > > static int ade7753_set_irq(struct device *dev, bool enable) > { > int ret; > u8 irqen; > > ret = ade7753_spi_read_reg_8(dev, ADE7753_IRQEN, &irqen); > if (ret) > goto error_ret; > > if (enable) > irqen |= BIT(3); /* Enables an interrupt when a data is > * present in the waveform register > */ > else > irqen &= ~BIT(3); > > ret = ade7753_spi_write_reg_8(dev, ADE7753_IRQEN, irqen); > > error_ret: > return ret; > } > > This one is actually safe because it is the only function that > modifies that particular register. > > /* Power down the device */ > static int ade7753_stop_device(struct device *dev) > { > u16 val; > int ret; > > ret = ade7753_spi_read_reg_16(dev, ADE7753_MODE, &val); > if (ret) > return ret; > > val |= BIT(4); /* AD converters can be turned off */ > > return ade7753_spi_write_reg_16(dev, ADE7753_MODE, val); > } > > Only called in remove (after userspace interfaces have been > removed by the iio_device_unregister call so also should not > be running concurrently with much else. > The only nested lock here is ade7754_spi_write_reg_16, so as long as that is refactored, it'll be fine. > So I think all the other cases are safe. Perhaps it would have > been better to have had a lock around them, purely to make > the code more resilient against future changes though. > Probably a job to do as part of a larger scale pile of work > on that driver rather than as a one off patch. Another question that I have is why are we writing inside a read function(ade7754_spi_read_reg_24)? static int ade7754_spi_read_reg_24(struct device *dev, u8 reg_address, u32 *val) { struct iio_dev *indio_dev = dev_to_iio_dev(dev); struct ade7754_state *st = iio_priv(indio_dev); int ret; struct spi_transfer xfers[] = { { .tx_buf = st->tx, .rx_buf = st->rx, .bits_per_word = 8, .len = 4, }, }; mutex_lock(&st->buf_lock); st->tx[0] = ADE7754_READ_REG(reg_address); st->tx[1] = 0; st->tx[2] = 0; st->tx[3] = 0; ret = spi_sync_transfer(st->us, xfers, ARRAY_SIZE(xfers)); if (ret) { dev_err(&st->us->dev, "problem when reading 24 bit register 0x%02X", reg_address); goto error_ret; } *val = (st->rx[1] << 16) | (st->rx[2] << 8) | st->rx[3]; error_ret: mutex_unlock(&st->buf_lock); return ret; } Thanks! Gargi > > Jonathan > > > > > > > >> >> >>> >>> Looking through the driver there seem to be other places as well that do >>> read-modify-write that should be protected by a lock, but currently are not. >>> This might be a good task. >> >> Am I right in understanding that we want to introduce mutex lock for >> writes in other drivers as well? >> >> Thanks, >> Gargi >>> >>>> **/ >>>> struct ade7753_state { >>>> - struct spi_device *us; >>>> - struct mutex buf_lock; >>>> - u8 tx[ADE7753_MAX_TX] ____cacheline_aligned; >>>> - u8 rx[ADE7753_MAX_RX]; >>>> + struct spi_device *us; >>>> + struct mutex buf_lock; >>>> + struct mutex lock; /* protect sensor state */ >>>> + u8 tx[ADE7753_MAX_TX] ____cacheline_aligned; >>>> + u8 rx[ADE7753_MAX_RX]; >>>> }; >>>> >>>> static int ade7753_spi_write_reg_8(struct device *dev, >>>> @@ -484,7 +486,7 @@ static ssize_t ade7753_write_frequency(struct device *dev, >>>> if (!val) >>>> return -EINVAL; >>>> >>>> - mutex_lock(&indio_dev->mlock); >>>> + mutex_lock(&st->lock); >>>> >>>> t = 27900 / val; >>>> if (t > 0) >>>> @@ -505,7 +507,7 @@ static ssize_t ade7753_write_frequency(struct device *dev, >>>> ret = ade7753_spi_write_reg_16(dev, ADE7753_MODE, reg); >>>> >>>> out: >>>> - mutex_unlock(&indio_dev->mlock); >>>> + mutex_unlock(&st->lock); >>>> >>>> return ret ? ret : len; >>>> } >>>> >>> >>> -- >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [Outreachy kernel] Re: [PATCH] staging: iio: ade7753: replace mlock with driver private lock 2017-03-19 13:16 ` Gargi Sharma @ 2017-03-19 17:08 ` Jonathan Cameron 0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Jonathan Cameron @ 2017-03-19 17:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gargi Sharma Cc: Lars-Peter Clausen, simran singhal, Michael Hennerich, Hartmut Knaack, Pete Meerwald-Stadler, Greg Kroah-Hartman, linux-iio, devel, linux-kernel, outreachy-kernel On 19/03/17 13:16, Gargi Sharma wrote: > On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org> wrote: >> On 17/03/17 09:32, Gargi Sharma wrote: >>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 03/12/2017 02:32 PM, simran singhal wrote: >>>>> The IIO subsystem is redefining iio_dev->mlock to be used by >>>>> the IIO core only for protecting device operating mode changes. >>>>> ie. Changes between INDIO_DIRECT_MODE, INDIO_BUFFER_* modes. >>>>> >>>>> In this driver, mlock was being used to protect hardware state >>>>> changes. Replace it with a lock in the devices global data. >>>>> >>>>> Fix some coding style issues related to white space also. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: simran singhal <singhalsimran0@gmail.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c | 14 ++++++++------ >>>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c b/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c >>>>> index dfd8b71..ca99d82 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c >>>>> @@ -81,12 +81,14 @@ >>>>> * @tx: transmit buffer >>>>> * @rx: receive buffer >>>>> * @buf_lock: mutex to protect tx and rx >>>>> + * @lock: protect sensor state >>>> >>>> It might make sense to reuse the existing lock which currently protects the >>>> read/write functions. You can do this by introducing a variant of >>>> ade7753_spi_{read,write}_reg_16() that does not take a lock and use these to >>>> implement the read-modify-write cycle in a protected section. >>> >>> There are other read/write functions for example, >>> ade7753_spi_{read/write}_reg_8 that use the mutex as well. Should a >>> variant of these functions be introduced as well? Also, how does one >>> go about implementing RMW inside a protected section. >> Hmm. Simran has also been progressing with patches for this. >> > I was trying to work through a patch for ade7754. So ran into the same > problem :) > >> You raise a good question. There are other read/modify/write sequences in >> the driver. They don't have the same issue with potentially deadlocking >> against the buf lock as they are all using the spi subsystems provisions >> for small write/read cycles where buffer protection is handled internally. >> >> So let us address the cases in turn: >> >> static int ade7753_reset(struct device *dev) >> { >> u16 val; >> int ret; >> >> ret = ade7753_spi_read_reg_16(dev, ADE7753_MODE, &val); >> if (ret) >> return ret; >> >> val |= BIT(6); /* Software Chip Reset */ >> >> return ade7753_spi_write_reg_16(dev, ADE7753_MODE, val); >> } >> This is only called in the device initialization. At that point >> we should be fine in assuming no parallel calls. Crucial point >> is it is before the call to iio_device_register which exposes >> the userspace interfaces. >> >> static int ade7753_set_irq(struct device *dev, bool enable) >> { >> int ret; >> u8 irqen; >> >> ret = ade7753_spi_read_reg_8(dev, ADE7753_IRQEN, &irqen); >> if (ret) >> goto error_ret; >> >> if (enable) >> irqen |= BIT(3); /* Enables an interrupt when a data is >> * present in the waveform register >> */ >> else >> irqen &= ~BIT(3); >> >> ret = ade7753_spi_write_reg_8(dev, ADE7753_IRQEN, irqen); >> >> error_ret: >> return ret; >> } >> >> This one is actually safe because it is the only function that >> modifies that particular register. >> >> /* Power down the device */ >> static int ade7753_stop_device(struct device *dev) >> { >> u16 val; >> int ret; >> >> ret = ade7753_spi_read_reg_16(dev, ADE7753_MODE, &val); >> if (ret) >> return ret; >> >> val |= BIT(4); /* AD converters can be turned off */ >> >> return ade7753_spi_write_reg_16(dev, ADE7753_MODE, val); >> } >> >> Only called in remove (after userspace interfaces have been >> removed by the iio_device_unregister call so also should not >> be running concurrently with much else. >> > > The only nested lock here is ade7754_spi_write_reg_16, so as long as > that is refactored, it'll be fine. > >> So I think all the other cases are safe. Perhaps it would have >> been better to have had a lock around them, purely to make >> the code more resilient against future changes though. >> Probably a job to do as part of a larger scale pile of work >> on that driver rather than as a one off patch. > > Another question that I have is why are we writing inside a read > function(ade7754_spi_read_reg_24)? > It's a register read (sort of) hence the reg in the name. It's telling it which register to read by first writing that. > static int ade7754_spi_read_reg_24(struct device *dev, > u8 reg_address, u32 *val) > { > struct iio_dev *indio_dev = dev_to_iio_dev(dev); > struct ade7754_state *st = iio_priv(indio_dev); > int ret; > struct spi_transfer xfers[] = { > { > .tx_buf = st->tx, > .rx_buf = st->rx, > .bits_per_word = 8, > .len = 4, > }, > }; > > mutex_lock(&st->buf_lock); > st->tx[0] = ADE7754_READ_REG(reg_address); > st->tx[1] = 0; > st->tx[2] = 0; > st->tx[3] = 0; > > ret = spi_sync_transfer(st->us, xfers, ARRAY_SIZE(xfers)); > if (ret) { > dev_err(&st->us->dev, "problem when reading 24 bit > register 0x%02X", > reg_address); > goto error_ret; > } > *val = (st->rx[1] << 16) | (st->rx[2] << 8) | st->rx[3]; > > error_ret: > mutex_unlock(&st->buf_lock); > return ret; > } > > Thanks! > Gargi > >> >> Jonathan >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Looking through the driver there seem to be other places as well that do >>>> read-modify-write that should be protected by a lock, but currently are not. >>>> This might be a good task. >>> >>> Am I right in understanding that we want to introduce mutex lock for >>> writes in other drivers as well? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Gargi >>>> >>>>> **/ >>>>> struct ade7753_state { >>>>> - struct spi_device *us; >>>>> - struct mutex buf_lock; >>>>> - u8 tx[ADE7753_MAX_TX] ____cacheline_aligned; >>>>> - u8 rx[ADE7753_MAX_RX]; >>>>> + struct spi_device *us; >>>>> + struct mutex buf_lock; >>>>> + struct mutex lock; /* protect sensor state */ >>>>> + u8 tx[ADE7753_MAX_TX] ____cacheline_aligned; >>>>> + u8 rx[ADE7753_MAX_RX]; >>>>> }; >>>>> >>>>> static int ade7753_spi_write_reg_8(struct device *dev, >>>>> @@ -484,7 +486,7 @@ static ssize_t ade7753_write_frequency(struct device *dev, >>>>> if (!val) >>>>> return -EINVAL; >>>>> >>>>> - mutex_lock(&indio_dev->mlock); >>>>> + mutex_lock(&st->lock); >>>>> >>>>> t = 27900 / val; >>>>> if (t > 0) >>>>> @@ -505,7 +507,7 @@ static ssize_t ade7753_write_frequency(struct device *dev, >>>>> ret = ade7753_spi_write_reg_16(dev, ADE7753_MODE, reg); >>>>> >>>>> out: >>>>> - mutex_unlock(&indio_dev->mlock); >>>>> + mutex_unlock(&st->lock); >>>>> >>>>> return ret ? ret : len; >>>>> } >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>> -- >>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in >>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >>> >> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [Outreachy kernel] Re: [PATCH] staging: iio: ade7753: replace mlock with driver private lock 2017-03-13 12:00 ` Lars-Peter Clausen 2017-03-13 12:33 ` SIMRAN SINGHAL 2017-03-17 9:32 ` [Outreachy kernel] " Gargi Sharma @ 2017-03-19 18:02 ` Gargi Sharma 2 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Gargi Sharma @ 2017-03-19 18:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Lars-Peter Clausen Cc: simran singhal, Michael Hennerich, Jonathan Cameron, Hartmut Knaack, Pete Meerwald-Stadler, Greg Kroah-Hartman, linux-iio, devel, linux-kernel, outreachy-kernel On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de> wrote: > On 03/12/2017 02:32 PM, simran singhal wrote: >> The IIO subsystem is redefining iio_dev->mlock to be used by >> the IIO core only for protecting device operating mode changes. >> ie. Changes between INDIO_DIRECT_MODE, INDIO_BUFFER_* modes. >> >> In this driver, mlock was being used to protect hardware state >> changes. Replace it with a lock in the devices global data. >> >> Fix some coding style issues related to white space also. >> >> Signed-off-by: simran singhal <singhalsimran0@gmail.com> >> --- >> drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c | 14 ++++++++------ >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c b/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c >> index dfd8b71..ca99d82 100644 >> --- a/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c >> +++ b/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7753.c >> @@ -81,12 +81,14 @@ >> * @tx: transmit buffer >> * @rx: receive buffer >> * @buf_lock: mutex to protect tx and rx >> + * @lock: protect sensor state > > It might make sense to reuse the existing lock which currently protects the > read/write functions. You can do this by introducing a variant of > ade7753_spi_{read,write}_reg_16() that does not take a lock and use these to > implement the read-modify-write cycle in a protected section. > The only instance I was able to find was drivers/iio/adc/vf610_adc.c where read modify write cycles are present on the register VF610_REG_ADC_CFG. I believe writel() & readl() is used for this purpose. In this case, we want to write to data to a device on the SPI bus. Can we use writel() for this purpose? > Looking through the driver there seem to be other places as well that do > read-modify-write that should be protected by a lock, but currently are not. > This might be a good task. > >> **/ >> struct ade7753_state { >> - struct spi_device *us; >> - struct mutex buf_lock; >> - u8 tx[ADE7753_MAX_TX] ____cacheline_aligned; >> - u8 rx[ADE7753_MAX_RX]; >> + struct spi_device *us; >> + struct mutex buf_lock; >> + struct mutex lock; /* protect sensor state */ >> + u8 tx[ADE7753_MAX_TX] ____cacheline_aligned; >> + u8 rx[ADE7753_MAX_RX]; >> }; >> >> static int ade7753_spi_write_reg_8(struct device *dev, >> @@ -484,7 +486,7 @@ static ssize_t ade7753_write_frequency(struct device *dev, >> if (!val) >> return -EINVAL; >> >> - mutex_lock(&indio_dev->mlock); >> + mutex_lock(&st->lock); >> >> t = 27900 / val; >> if (t > 0) >> @@ -505,7 +507,7 @@ static ssize_t ade7753_write_frequency(struct device *dev, >> ret = ade7753_spi_write_reg_16(dev, ADE7753_MODE, reg); >> >> out: >> - mutex_unlock(&indio_dev->mlock); >> + mutex_unlock(&st->lock); >> >> return ret ? ret : len; >> } >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "outreachy-kernel" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to outreachy-kernel+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to outreachy-kernel@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/outreachy-kernel/6e55c61d-7587-4191-1fc5-de43e26986d7%40metafoo.de. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-03-19 18:09 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2017-03-12 13:32 [PATCH] staging: iio: ade7753: replace mlock with driver private lock simran singhal 2017-03-12 18:33 ` [Outreachy kernel] " Alison Schofield 2017-03-13 3:58 ` SIMRAN SINGHAL 2017-03-13 5:29 ` Alison Schofield 2017-03-13 12:00 ` Lars-Peter Clausen 2017-03-13 12:33 ` SIMRAN SINGHAL 2017-03-13 13:34 ` Lars-Peter Clausen 2017-03-17 9:32 ` [Outreachy kernel] " Gargi Sharma 2017-03-19 10:31 ` Jonathan Cameron 2017-03-19 13:16 ` Gargi Sharma 2017-03-19 17:08 ` Jonathan Cameron 2017-03-19 18:02 ` Gargi Sharma
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome