Hello.
On Sat, 2012-04-21 at 08:30, benjamin deering wrote:
> From: benjamin Deering <ben_deer...@swissmail.org>
>
> Protect calls in bq27x00_external_power_changed with the mutex that
> is used to protect the same calls in other places in the driver.
> ---
> drivers/power/bq27x00_battery.c | 3 ++-
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/power/bq27x00_battery.c b/drivers/power/bq27x00_battery.c
> index 59e68db..325b006 100644
> --- a/drivers/power/bq27x00_battery.c
> +++ b/drivers/power/bq27x00_battery.c
> @@ -512,9 +512,10 @@ static int bq27x00_battery_get_property(struct
> power_supply *psy,
> static void bq27x00_external_power_changed(struct power_supply *psy)
> {
> struct bq27x00_device_info *di = to_bq27x00_device_info(psy);
> -
> + mutex_lock(&di->lock);
> cancel_delayed_work_sync(&di->work);
> schedule_delayed_work(&di->work, 0);
> + mutex_lock(&di->unlock);
Maybe I'm totally off here but os one not supposed to use with with
mutex_lock()/mutex_unlock(). And at least in the mainline version of
this driver I could not find a member called unlock in struct
bq27x00_device_info.
Maybe you just replaced the lock with unlock in the variable and not
the function name? That would raise the question if this was tested
at all though. ;)
regards
Stefan Schmidt
_______________________________________________
Shr-devel mailing list
Shr-devel@lists.shr-project.org
http://lists.shr-project.org/mailman/listinfo/shr-devel
