lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:10:31 +0300
From:	Vladimir Zapolskiy <>
To:	Alexandre Belloni <>
CC:	Thierry Reding <>,
	Maxime Ripard <>,, Simon <>,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCHv8 1/2] pwm: Add Allwinner SoC support

Hi Alexandre,

On 20.10.2014 13:29, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> Hi,
> On 20/10/2014 at 00:22:57 +0300, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote :
>>> +struct sun4i_pwm_chip {
>>> +	struct pwm_chip chip;
>>> +	struct clk *clk;
>>> +	void __iomem *base;
>>> +	struct mutex ctrl_lock;
>> why do you use mutex? I haven't found any blocking subcalls under
>> protection, a spinlock seems to fit better here.
> A mutex here will do the right thing. The lock is never taken in
> interrupt context and a mutex is spinning for a few cycles before
> putting the thread to sleep.

and why do you want to put a thread to sleep in context of the driver?

> I'm not sure why you feel a spinlock would be better here.

Only because a spinlock is lighter than a mutex.

With best wishes,
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists