[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdYaropisZADA61LF_0aUmWzi44c7pQbEUV92r06Qu3m_w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 10:47:23 +0200
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>
Cc: Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
Linux-OMAP <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Santosh Shilimkar <ssantosh@...nel.org>,
Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH-next 07/20] gpio: gpio-omap: simplify omap_gpio_get_direction()
On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 7:12 PM Grygorii Strashko
<grygorii.strashko@...com> wrote:
> From: Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>
>
> Architectures are single-copy atomic, which means that simply reading
> a register is an inherently atomic operation. There is no need to
> take a spinlock here.
>
> Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>
> Signed-off-by: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>
Patch applied.
This makes me wonder how many more instances we have
of this kind of mistake in the kernel :/ I guess it is mostly
harmless but it sure makes for massive code complexity.
I would sure like e.g. drivers/gpio/gpio-mmio.c to avoid
taking locks on architectures where this is not a problem
given it is used on a plethora of architectures.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
Powered by blists - more mailing lists