[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <544509C7.9010309@mleia.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:10:31 +0300
From: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@...ia.com>
To: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>
CC: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
jonsmirl@...il.com, Simon <longsleep@...il.com>,
linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
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,
Vladimir
--
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