[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <571DD80A.1030409@nvidia.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 14:10:42 +0530
From: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>
To: Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>
CC: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 4/4] gpio: tegra: Add support for gpio debounce
On Monday 25 April 2016 11:06 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> Sorry, just realized I commented on v3...
>
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 7:09 PM, Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com> wrote:
>> + spinlock_t dbc_lock[4]; /* Lock for updating debounce count register */
> I'm nit'ing here, but maybe one spinlock shared by all ports would be
> enough? (the same would apply to lvl_lock, so feel free to do this as
> a separate patch) I don't think we expect *that* many concurrent
> accesses, do we?
Really no, but to make the stuff uniform, it should be fine here. If the
registers are not conflicting then do not make under same lock.
>>
>>
>> spin_lock_irqsave(bank->dbc_lock[port], flags);
>> if (bank->dbc_cnt[port] < debounce_ms) {
>> tegra_gpio_writel(tgi, debounce_ms, GPIO_DBC_CNT(tgi, offset));
>> bank->dbc_cnt[port] = debounce_ms;
>> }
>> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&bank->dbc_lock[port], flags);
>>
>> Which is nicer to the eyes.
>>
OK, this also looks fine. As I am goign to respin this for V5 (for gc as
instance rather than pointer), I will take care of it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists