[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1338286268.11518.157.camel@shinybook.infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 11:11:08 +0100
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To: Christian Dietrich <christian.dietrich@...ormatik.uni-erlangen.de>
Cc: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>,
Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dbaryshkov@...il.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
alsa-devel@...a-project.org, vamos-dev@...ts.cs.fau.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netwinder: nw_gpio_lock is a raw_spinlock_t
On Tue, 2012-05-29 at 12:06 +0200, Christian Dietrich wrote:
> Since nw_gpio_lock is a raw_spinlock_t it should be used with the
> raw_spinlock_* functions and not the spinlock_* variants. Functionally
> this is equivalent at the moment, because the raw_spinlock_t is the
> first field of spinlock_t, and therefore &nw_gpio_lock ==
> &(nw_gpio_lock->rlock). But when other spinlock_t functions use other
> field they read and write random memory.
Hm, why are we exposing a raw spinlock to drivers?
Should we export a helper function (or macro, I suppose) which does the
appropriate locking *and* the GPIO operation?
--
dwmw2
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/x-pkcs7-signature" (6171 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists