Re: [PATCH V5 4/5] iio: adc: Add support for QCOM PMIC5 Gen3 ADC

[Jishnu Prakash]

Hi Jonathan,

On 3/1/2025 8:55 AM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 14:22:05 +0530
> Jishnu Prakash <jishnu.prakash@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
...
>>>> +void adc5_take_mutex_lock(struct device *dev, bool lock)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	struct iio_dev *indio_dev = dev_get_drvdata(dev->parent);
>>>> +	struct adc5_chip *adc = iio_priv(indio_dev);
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (lock)
>>>> +		mutex_lock(&adc->lock);
>>>> +	else
>>>> +		mutex_unlock(&adc->lock);
>>>> +}
>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(adc5_take_mutex_lock, "QCOM_SPMI_ADC5_GEN3");  
>>>
>>> This is potentially going to make a mess for sparse.  Might be better to split
>>> it in two so you can had __acquires and __releases markings.
>>>
>>> If you don't get any warnings with sparse then I guess we are fine.
>>>   
>>
>> I had tried building with sparse in my local workspace and I did not get any errors in this file. Do you think I can keep this unchanged?
>> Also, would any kernel bots run sparse later on this patch, if it's not already done?
> 
> Problems around this tend to turn up a bit late in build tests as requires
> particular combinations of features.  Here you may not see problems because
> sparse can't see far enough to understand the locking.
> 
> I would still split this into lock / unlock as that matches better
> with common syntax for locks.  We can then add markings
> as necessary later.
> 

OK, I can split this into separate lock and unlock functions.
And for markings, you mean I should add these:

    __acquires(&adc->lock)
    __releases(&adc->lock)

under the lock and unlock functions respectively?

Thanks,
Jishnu

>>>> +/*  
>>>
>>> Looks like valid kernel doc, so /** and check it builds fine
>>> with the kernel-doc script.
>>>