2014-10-31 10:48 GMT+03:00 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 1:01 AM, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov
> <dbaryshkov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Add gpiolib driver for gpio pins placed on the LoCoMo GA.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dbaryshkov@xxxxxxxxx>
>
[skipped]
> (etc, everywhere this pattern occurs).
>> +static void locomo_gpio_set(struct gpio_chip *chip,
>> + unsigned offset, int value)
>> +{
>> + struct locomo_gpio *lg = container_of(chip, struct locomo_gpio, gpio);
>> + unsigned long flags;
>> +
>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&lg->lock, flags);
>> +
>> + __locomo_gpio_set(chip, offset, value);
>> +
>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&lg->lock, flags);
>
> If you actually always have to be getting and releasing a spin lock around
> the register writes, contemplate using regmap-mmio because that
> is part of what it does.
>
> But is this locking really necessary?
I have a custom of doing such locking and never having to think about
somebody breaking into RMW cycles.
Also isn't regmap an overkill here? Wouldn't regmap also do a lock/unlock
around each register read/write/RMW?
>> +static int locomo_gpio_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> +{
>> + struct locomo_gpio *lg = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + ret = gpiochip_remove(&lg->gpio);
>> + if (ret) {
>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Can't remove gpio chip: %d\n", ret);
>> + return ret;
>> + }
>
> The return value from gpiochip_remove() has been removed in v3.18-rc1
> so this will not compile.
Yes, the fix will be in the next iteration. This patchset was based on 3.17
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
