Re: [PATCH 1/3] i2c: append hardware lock with bus lock

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 04:16:25PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Are you suggesting that the hardware lock wouldn't mind being taken
> twice by the AP side? If it is the case, then indeed the software mutex
> is still needed to prevent it from happening.
> 
> That being said... I guess that avoiding a priority inversion is a good
> enough reason to always take the rt_mutex, regardless of the hardware
> lock implementation.
> 
> So, this patch is
> 
> Acked-by: Jean Delvare <khali@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> I guess it makes more sense for me to let Ben apply it, as the other
> two patches in the series are for him too. This will avoid a dependency
> between our trees.

Only change I'd suggest is passing adapter to the hardware_lock/unlock
methods.  Having no arguments what so ever in generic code for this kind
of stuff looks rather strange and limiting.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/