Em Thu, 12 Jul 2018 23:28:51 +0200 Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 11:37:36AM +0900, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 07:17:53AM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > > > With the introduction of mux-locked I2C muxes, the concept of > > > locking only a segment of the I2C adapter tree was added. At the > > > time, I did not want to cause a lot of extra churn, so left most > > > users of i2c_lock_adapter alone and apparently didn't think enough > > > about it; they simply continued to lock the whole adapter tree. > > > However, i2c_lock_adapter is in fact wrong for almost every caller > > > (there is naturally an exception) that is itself not a driver for > > > a root adapter. What normal drivers generally want is to only > > > lock the segment of the adapter tree that their device sits on. > > > > > > In fact, if a device sits behind a mux-locked I2C mux, and its > > > driver calls i2c_lock_adapter followed by an unlocked I2C transfer, > > > things will deadlock (since even a mux-locked I2C adapter will lock > > > its parent at some point). If the device is not sitting behind a > > > mux-locked I2C mux (i.e. either directly on the root adapter or > > > behind a (chain of) parent-locked I2C muxes) the root/segment > > > distinction is of no consequence; the root adapter is locked either > > > way. > > > > > > Mux-locked I2C muxes are probably not that common, and putting any > > > of the affected devices behind one is probably even rarer, which > > > is why we have not seen any deadlocks. At least not that I know > > > of... > > > > > > Since silently changing the semantics of i2c_lock_adapter might > > > be quite a surprise, especially for out-of-tree users, this series > > > instead removes the function and forces all users to explicitly > > > name I2C_LOCK_SEGMENT or I2C_LOCK_ROOT_ADAPTER in a call to > > > i2c_lock_bus, as suggested by Wolfram. Yes, users will be a teensy > > > bit more wordy, but open-coding I2C locking from random drivers > > > should be avoided, so it's perhaps a good thing if it doesn't look > > > too neat? > > > > > > I suggest that Wolfram takes this series through the I2C tree and > > > creates an immutable branch for the other subsystems. The series > > > is based on v4.18-r1. > > > > Applied to a seperate branch named "i2c/precise-locking-names" which I > > will merge into for-next, so it will get proper testing already. Once we > > get the missing acks from media, MFD, and IIO maintainers, I will merge > > it into for-4.19. > > Ping for media related acks. For the media-related ones: Acked-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Thanks, > > Wolfram > Thanks, Mauro
