Hi Michael,
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 10:52:49 +0200, Michael Lawnick wrote:
> Hi Jean,
>
> Jean Delvare said the following:
> ...
> >> if (adapter->algo->smbus_xfer) {
> >> - rt_mutex_lock(&adapter->bus_lock);
> >> + i2c_mux_tree_lock(adapter);
> >>
> >> /* Retry automatically on arbitration loss */
> >> orig_jiffies = jiffies;
> >> @@ -1871,7 +1950,7 @@ s32 i2c_smbus_xfer(struct i2c_adapter *adapter, u16
> >> addr, unsigned short flags,
> >> orig_jiffies + adapter->timeout))
> >> break;
> >> }
> >> - rt_mutex_unlock(&adapter->bus_lock);
> >> + i2c_mux_tree_unlock(adapter);
> >> } else
> >> res = i2c_smbus_xfer_emulated(adapter,addr,flags,read_write,
> >> command, protocol, data);
> >
> > I'm worried that this approach is risky. We now use i2c_mux_tree_*lock
> > internally, but still expose the i2c_*lock_adapter() API externally.
> > This API is _not_ mux-aware, and will do the wrong thing if called on a
> > bus segment behind a mux.
> >
> > I'd rather not have two APIs when we really only need one. Let's just
> > update the current public API to be mux-aware, and use that everywhere.
>
> Agree, but I'd vote to do it not inline as its now. Otherwise we start to
> export
> mux implementation details in i2c.h
Of course. In fact I am preparing a patch which moves these functions
to i2c-core, uninlines them, and uses them as appropriate. Your
multiplexing patch would stack on top of it, so it is nice and clean
and self-contained.
> >> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/i2c-dev.c b/drivers/i2c/i2c-dev.c
> >> index f4110aa..da5327f 100755
> >> --- a/drivers/i2c/i2c-dev.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/i2c/i2c-dev.c
> >> @@ -193,12 +193,56 @@ static int i2cdev_check(struct device *dev, void
> >> *addrp)
> >> return dev->driver ? -EBUSY : 0;
> >> }
> >>
> >> +static int i2cdev_parent_is_i2c_adapter(const struct i2c_adapter *adapter)
> >> +{
> >> + return adapter->dev.parent != NULL
> >> + && adapter->dev.parent->bus == &i2c_bus_type;
> >> +}
> >
> > This is an exact duplicate of the same function in i2c-core. I'd rather
> > make it an inline function in <linux/i2c.h>, or export the one from
> > i2c-core.c. We have enough duplicate code in i2c-dev.c already :(
>
> Must this and the above be done in an extra patch or can it be mixed into
> this mux patch?
Whatever is easier for you, both are fine with me.
--
Jean Delvare
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
