On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 10:06:40AM +0900, Atsushi Nemoto wrote:
> Use a mutex to protect access to idev->msg_len, idev->buf, etc. which
> are modified by both altr_i2c_xfer_msg() and altr_i2c_isr().
>
> Signed-off-by: Atsushi Nemoto <atsushi.nemoto@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-altera.c | 10 +++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-altera.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-altera.c
> index 20ef63820c77..3db7d77c5a1e 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-altera.c
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-altera.c
> @@ -70,6 +70,7 @@
> * @isr_mask: cached copy of local ISR enables.
> * @isr_status: cached copy of local ISR status.
> * @lock: spinlock for IRQ synchronization.
> + * @mutex: mutex for IRQ thread.
I think the name 'mutex' is too unspecific. (Same goes for 'lock' above
which is not part of your patch, obviously.)
> */
> struct altr_i2c_dev {
> void __iomem *base;
> @@ -86,6 +87,7 @@ struct altr_i2c_dev {
> u32 isr_mask;
> u32 isr_status;
> spinlock_t lock; /* IRQ synchronization */
> + struct mutex mutex;
> };
Has it been checked if we really need both, the spinlock and the mutex?
From a glimpse, it looks like the spinlock became obsolete now.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
