Hi Andi,

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 10:09:26AM +0900, Andi Shyti wrote:
> > > + ret = regulator_enable(idata->regulator);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > +         return ret;
> > > +
> > > + mutex_lock(&idata->mutex);
> > > + idata->xfer.len = n;
> > > + idata->xfer.tx_buf = buffer;
> > > + mutex_unlock(&idata->mutex);
> > 
> > I'm not convinced the locking works here. You want to guard against 
> > someone modifying xfer while you are sending (so in spi_sync_transfer), 
> > which this locking is not doing. You could declare a 
> > local "struct spi_transfer xfer" and avoid the mutex altogether.
> 
> I cannot declare xfer locally because the spi framework needs
> a statically allocated xfer, so that either I dynamically
> allocate it in the function or I declare it global in idata.

It can be stack allocated for sync transfers. You might want to lock
the spi bus.

> With the mutex I would like to prevent different tasks to change
> the value at the same time, it's an easy case, it shouldn't make
> much difference.

That's cargo-cult locking. It does not achieve anything.


Sean
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to