[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070205104619.72cfd914@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 10:46:19 +0000
From: Alan <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: "Wu, Bryan" <Bryan.Wu@...log.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...l.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Blackfin: serial driver for Blackfin architecture
against Linux kernel 2.6.20
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 02:33:47 -0500
"Wu, Bryan" <Bryan.Wu@...log.com> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> This is the serial driver supports Blackfin processors. It is designed
> for the serial core framework.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bryan Wu <bryan.wu@...log.com>
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SERIAL_BFIN_PIO
> +static void local_put_char(struct bfin_serial_port *uart, char ch)
> +{
> + unsigned short status;
> + int flags = 0;
> +
> + local_irq_save(flags);
> +
> + do {
> + status = UART_GET_LSR(uart);
> + } while (!(status & THRE));
> +
> + UART_PUT_CHAR(uart, ch);
> +
> + local_irq_restore(flags);
Should this not be using the spinlock like the other stuff rather than
local_irq_* ??
> +}
> +
> +static void
> +bfin_serial_rx_chars(struct bfin_serial_port *uart)
(trivial) Formatting - function name on same line as type
+ local_irq_save(flags);
Likewise - why this not locks ?
Other than the locking bits looks ok, although has rather a lot of ifdefs
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists