Hi Ohad,
Thanks for the review.
On 11/12/2014 01:08 PM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> Hi Suman,
>
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 11:24 PM, Suman Anna <s-anna@xxxxxx> wrote:
>> +int of_hwspin_lock_get_id(struct device_node *np, int index)
>> +{
>> + struct hwspinlock_device *bank;
>> + struct of_phandle_args args;
>> + int id;
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + ret = of_parse_phandle_with_args(np, "hwlocks", "#hwlock-cells", index,
>> + &args);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>> +
>> + mutex_lock(&hwspinlock_tree_lock);
>> + list_for_each_entry(bank, &hwspinlock_devices, list)
>> + if (bank->dev->of_node == args.np)
>> + break;
>> + mutex_unlock(&hwspinlock_tree_lock);
>> + if (&bank->list == &hwspinlock_devices) {
>> + ret = -EPROBE_DEFER;
>> + goto out;
>> + }
>
> Is this the validation you mentioned which requires the existence of
> "hwspinlock/core: maintain a list of registered hwspinlock banks" ?
Well, not exactly. The validation is on the following segment,
+ id = of_hwspin_lock_simple_xlate(bank, &args);
+ if (id < 0 || id >= bank->num_locks) {
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ goto out;
+ }
That said, it is also needed to provide the support for deferred probing
without changing the return code conventions on the existing API.
>
> I'm not convinced this is needed for several reasons:
> - the user isn't using the lock yet at this point, and may only need
> the id in order to communicate it to a remote processor
Yes, and wouldn't that require that the id is validated? It just cannot
return any return value, and expect it will be verified somewhere else
or in a following API call. Not doing the validation unnecessarily
complicates the system usage of a lock as you are sharing an invalid
lock to a remote processor and then you have two validation failure
paths on different processors.
> - if the user will try to use the lock prematurely,
> hwspin_lock_request_specific should stop her
> - moreover, hwspin_lock_request_specific must be the one who validates
> the id, since in heterogeneous systems the user may get the id from a
> remote processor and not via of_hwspin_lock_get_id
>
> "hwspinlock/core: maintain a list of registered hwspinlock banks"
> adds complexity which must be very strongly justified.
>
> If we're not sure there is a strong justification for it, we better
> not merge it.
>
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(of_hwspin_lock_get_base_id);
> ...
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(of_hwspin_lock_get_num_locks);
>
> Do we really must expose these two helpers globally?
>
> Can we instead make these "static inline" methods and embed them in
> hwspinlock_internal.h ?
Actually, not a bad idea, I will move it, thanks. All the client drivers
would need it, and they already have to include the internal header.
regards
Suman
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
