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

[Haojian Zhuang]

On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
>

OK. I'll update it.
--
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/