Hi!Thanks Peter, I agree that its fragile to depend on idle as-is flags.
2025-03-24 at 16:58, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
On 24/03/2025 15:18, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 01:58:06PM +0000, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
On 24/03/2025 13:50, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 at 15:01, <srinivas.kandagatla@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@xxxxxxxxxx>
*snip*
+ int ret = mux_control_try_select(wcd938x->us_euro_mux, state);
Hmm. Does this really work? You have selected the mux in probe
function, now you are trying to select it again. If I'm reading the
code correctly, you will get -EBUSY here.
On successful selection of mux state, the mux will be kept available
(mux_control_deselect) for any new callers.
So we will not get EBUSY for the second caller.
No. wcd938x_populate_dt_data() selects the state by calling
wcd938x_select_mux_state().
At this point we also released it (both in success and error case).
This will hold on to the previous state unless we have defined a fallback idle-state.
Then you call mux_control_try_select() here.
As far as I understand, it will return -EBUSY as the sempahore is > already taken. Moreover, this is not how the MUX API is supposed to be
used. The driver is supposed to hold a state while it is still in use.
Dmitry is correct. A mux consumer is supposed to keep the mux selected
while it needs the mux to remain in a certain state. Relying on details
such as idle as-is and that no other consumer butts in and clobbers the
state is fragile. Mux access is not exclusive, at least not until a
mux state is selected.
Cheers,
Peter