Dear Hector Palacios,
> Dear Marek,
>
> On 07/02/2013 07:55 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > Dear Otavio Salvador,
> >
> >> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Marek Vasut <marex-
ynQEQJNshbs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> Dear Otavio Salvador,
> >>>
> >>>> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Marek Vasut <marex-
ynQEQJNshbs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>> Dear Alexandre Belloni,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 02/07/2013 14:03, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >>>>>>> Dear Alexandre Belloni,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Dear Marek,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I don't seem to be hitting that issue. I'm using 3.10rc7. Do you
> >>>>>>>> know how to reproduce it ?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The check is just redundant, it's not a bug.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ok, that's what I understood first but then got confused by reports
> >>>>>> of it solving a bug.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It cannot solve a thing. If it does, then we have a problem.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What kind of bug do you see ? How can I replicate it ? Can you send
> >>>>> me a testcase?
> >>>>
> >>>> As I said this code sometimes work. If you put a printf before this
> >>>> call it sometimes work. So I think we have a race somewhere.
> >>>>
> >>>> When I were debugging this I found that when it works we have 10
> >>>> active channels, it seems.
> >>>
> >>> Uh, the read_raw() should exit with -EBUSY, since the mutex_tryload()
> >>> will fail iff buffered operation is in progress. Or what do you mean by
> >>> having "10 active channels"?
> >>
> >> The read_raw returned invalid. The onehot always returns false and I
> >> have 10 as mask comparing return.
> >
> > Looking at the code.
> >
> > the bitmap_set() will set (1 << chan->channel) into "mask" var.
> >
> > The iio_validate_scan_mask_onehot is implemented like this:
> >
> > 688 bool iio_validate_scan_mask_onehot(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
> > 689 const unsigned long *mask)
> > 690 {
> > 691 return bitmap_weight(mask, indio_dev->masklength) == 1;
> > 692 }
> >
> > So if mask _always_ has exactly one bit set, the
> > iio_validate_scan_mask_onehot will always return 1. Aaaand ... now I see
> > why it fixes a bug for you.
> >
> > if (ret)
> >
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > This stuff above will always be if (1) so will always return -EINVAL.
> > Dang!
>
> Yes, this was exactly what was happening on my MX28 when trying to read one
> channel. Now, after the different comments I'm confused, was this a bug
> that your patch solved or was I doing something wrong?
This patch accidentally (in completely unintended way) solved a bug, yes. But
the main idea was to just remove redundant code.
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
