Re: [PATCH] input: spi: Driver for SPI data stream driven vibrator

[Grant Likely]

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 06:50:33PM +0200, ilkka.koskinen@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Hi Grant and thanks for comments,
[...]
> >> +static int vibra_spi_playback(struct input_dev *input, int effect_id,
> >int value)
> >> +{
> >> +    struct vibra_data *vibra = input_get_drvdata(input);
> >> +    struct effect_info *einfo = &vibra->effects[effect_id];
> >> +    struct ff_effect *ff_effect = &input->ff->effects[effect_id];
> >> +
> >> +    if (!vibra->workqueue)
> >> +            return -ENODEV;
> >> +
> >> +    if (test_bit(FF_EFFECT_UPLOADING, &einfo->flags))
> >> +            return -EBUSY;
> >> +
> >> +    if (value == 0) {
> >> +            /* Abort the given effect */
> >> +            if (test_bit(FF_EFFECT_PLAYING, &einfo->flags))
> >> +                    __set_bit(FF_EFFECT_ABORTING, &einfo->flags);
> >> +
> >> +            __clear_bit(FF_EFFECT_QUEUED, &einfo->flags);
> >> +    } else {
> >> +            /* Move the given effect as the next one */
> >> +            __clear_bit(FF_EFFECT_QUEUED,
> >> +                    &vibra->effects[vibra->next_effect].flags);
> >> +
> >> +            vibra->next_effect = effect_id;
> >> +            __set_bit(FF_EFFECT_QUEUED, &einfo->flags);
> >> +            __clear_bit(FF_EFFECT_ABORTING, &einfo->flags);
> >> +            einfo->stop_at = jiffies +
> >> +                    msecs_to_jiffies(ff_effect->replay.length);
> >> +
> >> +            if (vibra->status == IDLE) {
> >> +                    vibra->status = STARTED;
> >> +                    queue_work(vibra->workqueue, &vibra->play_work);
> >> +            }
> >> +    }
> >
> >I can't speak anything about the input event handling because I'm not
> >very familiar with it.  However, it looks like the shared effect data
> >(vibra->effects) is getting modified outside of a critical region.  Is
> >this safe?

Hmmm, I don't know why the force feedback layer is using a spin lock,
but it looks like overkill.  Since you're already deferring work, I
would look at queueing the request and pushing down the spin lock
exposure as much as possible, but I'm really not the expert on the
input layer.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/