[PATCH 1/2] i2c: imx: use guard to take spinlock

[Ahmad Fatoum]

On 4/22/25 17:53, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
> Hello Troy,
> 
> On 4/22/25 17:26, Troy Mitchell wrote:
>> On 2025/4/22 23:12, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 13:36:38 +0800
> 
> [snip]
> 
>>> In this path the patch changes the lock release to occur after
>>> i2c_imx_master_isr(i2c_imx, status);
>>>
>>> That may well be safe; I have no idea!  You should talk about that
>>> in the patch description if it is.
>> You're correct that this change slightly alters the lock release timing.
>>
>> However, both i2c_imx_slave_handle() and i2c_imx_master_isr() can safely be
>> entered with the lock held — there's no requirement for the lock to be released
>> before calling them.
> 
> Why would we want to hold a spinlock out of all things longer than
> absolutely necessary?
> 
>> Using guard(spinlock_irqsave) simplifies the control flow by ensuring consistent
>> and automatic unlock, which improves readability without affecting correctness.
>>
>> I'll update the commit message to clarify this.
> 
> Sorry, I don't think that this simplification is worth potentially
> increasing the time we spend with preemption disabled,
> i2c_imx_master_isr() even has a loop inside.

Ah the loop is in lpi2c_imx_master_isr, sorry about the confusion.
I still think that the simplification isn't worth increasing critical
section size.

> Guards that don't increase critical section size however are fine by me.

Thanks,
Ahmad

> 
> Thanks,
> Ahmad
> 
>>
>>>
>>>> +
>>>>  		return i2c_imx_master_isr(i2c_imx, status);
>>>>  	}
>>>> -	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&i2c_imx->slave_lock, flags);
>>>>  
>>>>  	return IRQ_NONE;
>>>>  }
>>
> 

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                  |                             |
Steuerwalder Str. 21              | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany         | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686  | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |