Hello.
On 05/28/2014 11:44 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
From: Wolfram Sang <[email protected]>
The i2c core has per-adapter locks, so no need to protect again.
The core's lock is unable to protect from the IRQs. So I'm proposing to
revert this patch. It's a pity I hadn't noticed this issue when the patch was
posted.
Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <[email protected]>
---
drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-rcar.c | 22 ----------------------
1 file changed, 22 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-rcar.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-rcar.c
index e82d64b5acef..4b088e67f2fd 100644
--- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-rcar.c
+++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-rcar.c
[...]
@@ -110,7 +109,6 @@ struct rcar_i2c_priv {
struct i2c_msg *msg;
struct clk *clk;
- spinlock_t lock;
Needed a comment (that it protects the I2C registers).
[...]
@@ -462,21 +454,14 @@ static int rcar_i2c_master_xfer(struct i2c_adapter *adap,
{
struct rcar_i2c_priv *priv = i2c_get_adapdata(adap);
struct device *dev = rcar_i2c_priv_to_dev(priv);
- unsigned long flags;
int i, ret, timeout;
pm_runtime_get_sync(dev);
- /*-------------- spin lock -----------------*/
- spin_lock_irqsave(&priv->lock, flags);
-
rcar_i2c_init(priv);
/* start clock */
rcar_i2c_write(priv, ICCCR, priv->icccr);
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(&priv->lock, flags);
- /*-------------- spin unlock -----------------*/
-
I'm afraid this unlock is misplaced, the code continues to access the
registers.
ret = rcar_i2c_bus_barrier(priv);
Should probably unlock here instead?
if (ret < 0)
goto out;
WBR, Sergei
--
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
