Re: [PATCH v5 04/46] pwm: get rid of pwm->lock

2016-04-12 Thread Thierry Reding
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 01:32:55PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > Hi Thierry, > > On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:22:46 +0200 > Thierry Reding wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:03:27PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > > PWM devices are not protected against concurrent

Re: [PATCH v5 04/46] pwm: get rid of pwm->lock

2016-04-12 Thread Boris Brezillon
Hi Thierry, On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:22:46 +0200 Thierry Reding wrote: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:03:27PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > PWM devices are not protected against concurrent accesses. The lock in > > pwm_device might let PWM users think it is, but it's

Re: [PATCH v5 04/46] pwm: get rid of pwm->lock

2016-04-12 Thread Thierry Reding
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:03:27PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > PWM devices are not protected against concurrent accesses. The lock in > pwm_device might let PWM users think it is, but it's actually only > protecting the enabled state. > > Removing this lock should be fine as long as all PWM

[PATCH v5 04/46] pwm: get rid of pwm->lock

2016-03-30 Thread Boris Brezillon
PWM devices are not protected against concurrent accesses. The lock in pwm_device might let PWM users think it is, but it's actually only protecting the enabled state. Removing this lock should be fine as long as all PWM users are aware that accesses to the PWM device have to be serialized, which