lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Sep]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRE: [spi-devel-general] [PATCH 1/2] spi: new SPI bus lock/unlockfunctions
Date
From
On Thursday, September 17, 2009 3:03 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> From: Yi Li <yi.li@analog.com>
>
> For some MMC cards over SPI bus, it needs to lock the SPI bus for its own
> use. The SPI transfer must not be interrupted by other SPI devices that
> share the SPI bus with SPI MMC card.
>
> This patch introduces 2 APIs for SPI bus locking operation.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yi Li <yi.li@analog.com>
> Signed-off-by: Bryan Wu <cooloney@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
> ---
> Andrew: we've posted these in the past with no response. could you pick
> them up please ?

Hello Mike,

This is the first time I have seen this patch. I might have missed it
previously.

I would like to test it on my ep93xx system but have some question below.

> drivers/spi/spi.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> include/linux/spi/spi.h | 7 ++++++
> 2 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi.c b/drivers/spi/spi.c
> index 70845cc..b82b8ad 100644
> --- a/drivers/spi/spi.c
> +++ b/drivers/spi/spi.c
> @@ -653,6 +653,54 @@ static void spi_complete(void *arg)
> }
>
> /**
> + * spi_lock_bus - lock SPI bus for exclusive access
> + * @spi: device which want to lock the bus
> + * Context: any
> + *
> + * Once the caller owns exclusive access to the SPI bus,
> + * only messages for this device will be transferred.
> + * Messages for other devices are queued but not transferred until
> + * the bus owner unlock the bus.
> + *
> + * The caller may call spi_lock_bus() before spi_sync() or spi_async().
> + * So this call may be used in irq and other contexts which can't sleep,
> + * as well as from task contexts which can sleep.
> + *
> + * It returns zero on success, else a negative error code.
> + */
> +int spi_lock_bus(struct spi_device *spi)
> +{
> + if (spi->master->lock_bus)
> + return spi->master->lock_bus(spi);
> + else
> + return 0;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(spi_lock_bus);
> +
> +/**
> + * spi_unlock_bus - unlock SPI bus
> + * @spi: device which want to unlock the bus
> + * Context: any
> + *
> + * The caller has called spi_lock_bus() to lock the bus. It calls
> + * spi_unlock_bus() to release the bus so messages for other devices
> + * can be transferred.
> + *
> + * If the caller did not call spi_lock_bus() before, spi_unlock_bus()
> + * should have no effect.
> + *
> + * It returns zero on success, else a negative error code.
> + */
> +int spi_unlock_bus(struct spi_device *spi)
> +{
> + if (spi->master->unlock_bus)
> + return spi->master->unlock_bus(spi);
> + else
> + return 0;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(spi_unlock_bus);
> +
> +/**

I assume the spi master driver must supply the {lock/unlock}_bus methods
to properly support the locking. But, by returning 0 when the methods
are not supplied you are basically saying all the current master drivers
in mainline support bus locking. I think this is really only "true" if
spi->master->num_chipselect == 1.

Also, do you have a master driver that does have the {lock/unlock}_bus
methods? I would like to see how you handled it.

Regards,
Hartley


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-09-18 00:49    [W:0.117 / U:0.028 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site