Dear Marek,
On 07/03/2013 01:38 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
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.
Maybe you should then amend the commit message to make clear that it solves a bug.
Best regards,
--
Hector Palacios
--
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
