On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 04:16:25PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: >> Are you suggesting that the hardware lock wouldn't mind being taken >> twice by the AP side? If it is the case, then indeed the software mutex >> is still needed to prevent it from happening. >> >> That being said... I guess that avoiding a priority inversion is a good >> enough reason to always take the rt_mutex, regardless of the hardware >> lock implementation. >> >> So, this patch is >> >> Acked-by: Jean Delvare <khali@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> I guess it makes more sense for me to let Ben apply it, as the other >> two patches in the series are for him too. This will avoid a dependency >> between our trees. > > Only change I'd suggest is passing adapter to the hardware_lock/unlock > methods. Having no arguments what so ever in generic code for this kind > of stuff looks rather strange and limiting. > OK. I'll update it. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
