[PATCH 13/15] iio: health: max30100: do not use internal iio_dev lock

[Miquel Raynal]

Hi Nuno,

nuno.sa at analog.com wrote on Tue, 20 Sep 2022 13:28:19 +0200:

> The pattern used in this device does not quite fit in the
> iio_device_claim_direct_mode() typical usage. In this case,
> iio_buffer_enabled() was being used not to prevent the raw access but to
> allow it. Hence to get rid of the 'mlock' we need to:
> 
> 1. Use iio_device_claim_direct_mode() to check if direct mode can be
> claimed and if we can return -EINVAL (as the original code);
>
> 2. Make sure that buffering is not disabled while doing a raw read. For
> that, we can make use of the local lock that already exists.
> 
> While at it, fixed a minor coding style complain...
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nuno Sá <nuno.sa at analog.com>
> ---
>  drivers/iio/health/max30100.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/health/max30100.c b/drivers/iio/health/max30100.c
> index ad5717965223..aa494cad5df0 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/health/max30100.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/health/max30100.c
> @@ -185,8 +185,19 @@ static int max30100_buffer_postenable(struct iio_dev *indio_dev)
>  static int max30100_buffer_predisable(struct iio_dev *indio_dev)
>  {
>  	struct max30100_data *data = iio_priv(indio_dev);
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * As stated in the comment in the read_raw() function, temperature
> +	 * can only be acquired if the engine is running. As such the mutex
> +	 * is used to make sure we do not power down while doing a temperature
> +	 * reading.
> +	 */
> +	mutex_lock(&data->lock);
> +	ret = max30100_set_powermode(data, false);
> +	mutex_unlock(&data->lock);
>  
> -	return max30100_set_powermode(data, false);
> +	return ret;
>  }
>  
>  static const struct iio_buffer_setup_ops max30100_buffer_setup_ops = {
> @@ -387,18 +398,17 @@ static int max30100_read_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
>  		 * Temperature reading can only be acquired while engine
>  		 * is running
>  		 */
> -		mutex_lock(&indio_dev->mlock);
> -
> -		if (!iio_buffer_enabled(indio_dev))
> +		if (!iio_device_claim_direct_mode(indio_dev)) {

I wonder if this line change here is really needed. I agree the whole
construction looks like what iio_device_claim_direct_mode() does but in
practice I don't see the point of acquiring any lock here if we just
release it no matter what happens right after.

Unless of course if there is a hidden goal like "stop exporting
iio_buffer_enabled()" or something like that.

At least I would separate this from the main change which targets the
removal of mlock because I don't see how it is directly related.

>  			ret = -EAGAIN;
> -		else {
> +			iio_device_release_direct_mode(indio_dev);
> +		} else {
> +			mutex_lock(&data->lock);
>  			ret = max30100_get_temp(data, val);
>  			if (!ret)
>  				ret = IIO_VAL_INT;
> -
> +			mutex_unlock(&data->lock);
>  		}
>  
> -		mutex_unlock(&indio_dev->mlock);
>  		break;
>  	case IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE:
>  		*val = 1;  /* 0.0625 */

In any case, nice series, thanks for writing it!

Thanks,
Miquèl