Hi Nuno,
nuno.sa@xxxxxxxxxx wrote on Tue, 20 Sep 2022 13:28:19 +0200:
> The pattern used in this device does not quite fit in the
> iio_device_claim_direct_mode() typical usage. In this case,
> iio_buffer_enabled() was being used not to prevent the raw access but to
> allow it. Hence to get rid of the 'mlock' we need to:
>
> 1. Use iio_device_claim_direct_mode() to check if direct mode can be
> claimed and if we can return -EINVAL (as the original code);
>
> 2. Make sure that buffering is not disabled while doing a raw read. For
> that, we can make use of the local lock that already exists.
>
> While at it, fixed a minor coding style complain...
>
> Signed-off-by: Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/iio/health/max30100.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/health/max30100.c b/drivers/iio/health/max30100.c
> index ad5717965223..aa494cad5df0 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/health/max30100.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/health/max30100.c
> @@ -185,8 +185,19 @@ static int max30100_buffer_postenable(struct iio_dev *indio_dev)
> static int max30100_buffer_predisable(struct iio_dev *indio_dev)
> {
> struct max30100_data *data = iio_priv(indio_dev);
> + int ret;
> +
> + /*
> + * As stated in the comment in the read_raw() function, temperature
> + * can only be acquired if the engine is running. As such the mutex
> + * is used to make sure we do not power down while doing a temperature
> + * reading.
> + */
> + mutex_lock(&data->lock);
> + ret = max30100_set_powermode(data, false);
> + mutex_unlock(&data->lock);
>
> - return max30100_set_powermode(data, false);
> + return ret;
> }
>
> static const struct iio_buffer_setup_ops max30100_buffer_setup_ops = {
> @@ -387,18 +398,17 @@ static int max30100_read_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
> * Temperature reading can only be acquired while engine
> * is running
> */
> - mutex_lock(&indio_dev->mlock);
> -
> - if (!iio_buffer_enabled(indio_dev))
> + if (!iio_device_claim_direct_mode(indio_dev)) {
I wonder if this line change here is really needed. I agree the whole
construction looks like what iio_device_claim_direct_mode() does but in
practice I don't see the point of acquiring any lock here if we just
release it no matter what happens right after.
Unless of course if there is a hidden goal like "stop exporting
iio_buffer_enabled()" or something like that.
At least I would separate this from the main change which targets the
removal of mlock because I don't see how it is directly related.
> ret = -EAGAIN;
> - else {
> + iio_device_release_direct_mode(indio_dev);
> + } else {
> + mutex_lock(&data->lock);
> ret = max30100_get_temp(data, val);
> if (!ret)
> ret = IIO_VAL_INT;
> -
> + mutex_unlock(&data->lock);
> }
>
> - mutex_unlock(&indio_dev->mlock);
> break;
> case IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE:
> *val = 1; /* 0.0625 */
In any case, nice series, thanks for writing it!
Thanks,
Miquèl
