On Mon, 18 May 2015 17:39:19 +0530 Vignesh R <vigneshr@xxxxxx> wrote:
> This patches makes following changes to omap_hdq driver
> - Enable 1-wire mode.
> - Implement w1_triplet callback to facilitate search rom
> procedure and auto detection of 1-wire slaves.
> - Proper enabling and disabling of interrupt.
> - Cleanups (formatting and return value checks).
>
> HDQ mode remains unchanged.
>
> ...
>
> +/*
> + * W1 triplet callback function - used for searching ROM addresses.
> + * Registered only when controller is in 1-wire mode.
> + */
> +static u8 omap_w1_triplet(void *_hdq, u8 bdir)
> +{
> + u8 id_bit, comp_bit;
> + int err;
> + u8 ret = 0x3; /* no slaves responded */
> + struct hdq_data *hdq_data = _hdq;
> + u8 ctrl = OMAP_HDQ_CTRL_STATUS_SINGLE | OMAP_HDQ_CTRL_STATUS_GO |
> + OMAP_HDQ_CTRL_STATUS_INTERRUPTMASK;
> + u8 mask = ctrl | OMAP_HDQ_CTRL_STATUS_DIR;
> +
> + omap_hdq_get(_hdq);
> +
> + err = mutex_lock_interruptible(&hdq_data->hdq_mutex);
> + if (err < 0) {
> + dev_dbg(hdq_data->dev, "Could not acquire mutex\n");
> + goto rtn;
> + }
The use of mutex_lock_interruptible() seems like a bad idea. It means
that if the calling process (modprobe?) has a signal pending,
w1_search() will think that "no device responded". That isn't really
true - a true statement is "user hit ^C". I'm not sure what the
overall runtime effect of this will be, but I bet it hasn't been
tested!
Wouldn't it be saner/safer to use plain old mutex_lock() here?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
