On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 02:07:13PM +0300, Heikki Krogerus wrote: > On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 04:19:00PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > > Hi Heikki, et al., > > > > As discussed before here is my fix for the AB BA lock inversion issue > > which lockdep found in the ucsi code. > > > > While working on the AB BA fix I added a > > WARN_ON(!mutex_is_locked(&ucsi->ppm_lock)) to ucsi_run_command() and > > that found me some more unrelated issues of ucsi_run_command() getting > > called without the ppm_lock held. This is fixed in the second patch. > > This made me realize that the ppm_lock handling should probably just > > be pushed down to inside ucsi_run_command() instead of letting the > > callers worry about this. > > > > In essence the first 3 patches are all related and all boil down to > > push the ppm_lock handling down into ucsi_run_command(), removing the > > difference between ucsi_run_command() and ucsi_send_command(). I have > > been thinking that we may want to just squash these 3 together. I've > > left them as separate patches now as thet document how I go to the > > end result after the 3th patch and having them separate might be > > easier for reviewing purposes. Let me know if you want a v2 of this > > patchset with them squashed into a single "usb: typec: ucsi: Rework > > ppm_lock handling" commit (with the commit messages merged). > > > > The 4th patch makes the also already discussed change of holding > > con->lock for the entire duration of ucsi_register_port(). > > I'm fine with having them in separate pathes like that. This all looks > good to me. Thanks for fixing this. For the whole series: > > Acked-by: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > I for my part wasn't able to review patches 1-3 separately, so I squashed them and reviewed the result, which looks good. For the series: Reviewed-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Guenter
