[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210126133612.GB4839@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 13:36:12 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
Cc: lgirdwood@...il.com, alsa-devel@...a-project.org, perex@...ex.cz,
tiwai@...e.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, vkoul@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] ASoC: soc-component: add
snd_soc_component_read/write_field()
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 12:20:19PM +0000, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
> +#define __soc_component_field_shift(x) (__builtin_ffs(x) - 1)
Why not have this be a static inline?
> +unsigned int snd_soc_component_read_field(struct snd_soc_component *component,
> + unsigned int reg, unsigned int mask)
> +{
> + unsigned int val;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&component->io_mutex);
> + val = soc_component_read_no_lock(component, reg);
> + if (mask)
> + val = (val & mask) >> __soc_component_field_shift(mask);
I don't understand why this is open coding the locking when it's just a
simple read and then shift?
> + mutex_lock(&component->io_mutex);
> +
> + old = soc_component_read_no_lock(component, reg);
> +
> + val = val << __soc_component_field_shift(mask);
> +
> + new = (old & ~mask) | (val & mask);
> +
> + change = old != new;
> + if (change)
> + ret = soc_component_write_no_lock(component, reg, new);
> +
> + mutex_unlock(&component->io_mutex);
This needs the lock as it's a read/modify/write but could also be
implemented in terms of the existing update_bits() operation rather than
open coding it.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists