Quoting Timur Tabi (2018-06-21 08:17:55) > @@ -96,11 +110,39 @@ static int msm_rng_read(struct hwrng *hwrng, void *data, size_t max, bool wait) > > /* read random data from hardware */ > do { > - val = readl_relaxed(rng->base + PRNG_STATUS); > - if (!(val & PRNG_STATUS_DATA_AVAIL)) > - break; > + spin_lock(&rng->lock); > + > + /* > + * First check the status bit. If 'wait' is true, then wait > + * up to TIMEOUT microseconds for data to be available. > + */ > + if (wait) { > + int ret; Please don't do local variables like this. Put them at the top of the function. > + > + ret = readl_poll_timeout_atomic(rng->base + PRNG_STATUS, > + val, val & PRNG_STATUS_DATA_AVAIL, 0, TIMEOUT); > + if (ret) { > + /* Timed out */ > + spin_unlock(&rng->lock); > + break; > + } > + } else { > + val = readl_relaxed(rng->base + PRNG_STATUS); > + if (!(val & PRNG_STATUS_DATA_AVAIL)) { > + spin_unlock(&rng->lock); > + break; > + } > + } > > val = readl_relaxed(rng->base + PRNG_DATA_OUT); > + spin_unlock(&rng->lock); Maybe this should be written as: spin_lock() if (wait) { has_data = readl_poll_timeout_atomic(...) == 0; } else { val = readl_relaxed(rng->base + PRNG_STATUS); has_data = val & PRNG_STATUS_DATA_AVAIL; } if (has_data) val = readl_relaxed(rng->base + PRNG_DATA_OUT); spin_unlock(); if (!has_data) break; > + > + /* > + * Zero is technically a valid random number, but it's also > + * the value returned if the PRNG is not enabled properly. > + * To avoid accidentally returning all zeros, treat it as > + * invalid and just return what we've already read. > + */ > if (!val) > break; Is this a related change? Looks like a nice comment that isn't related to locking.