On 05/16/2013 01:48 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: > From: Linus Walleij <linus.wall...@linaro.org> > > The pinctrldev_list_mutex is sinked into the functions that > actually traverse the list and lock it there. The code makes > much more sense in this way. All the callers are in > non-performance critical paths and the code is way more > readable this way. > > Also refactor the function get_pinctrl_dev_from_devname() to > follow the design pattern of get_pinctrl_dev_from_of_node() > which is slightly simpler.
This seems fine on the surface, but I do have one question: I think the pinctrl lock serves a couple of purposes: 1) Basic protection for accesses to the pinctrldev_list itself. This patch seems just fine w.r.t. this point. 2) Preventing pinctrl drivers from being unregistered (and their modules unloaded) when some operation is being performed on/to them. So, that means some code is written as follows: lock find pinctrl device perform operation on pinctrl device unlock // only now could the found pinctrl device be unregistered However, I think this patch changes that to the following for some operations: lock find pinctrl device unlock // now the found pinctrl device can be unregistered perform operation on pinctrl device Is this true here, or am I off-base? If this isn't an issue, then the patch is fine by me. But, how is the unregistration prevented while the device is being operated on then? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
