[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdZW1oWx-gnRO7gBuOM9dO23r+iifQRm1-M8z4Ms8En9cw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2021 17:05:00 +0100
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: DENG Qingfang <dqfext@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next] net: dsa: rtl8366rb: support bridge offloading
On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 4:58 AM DENG Qingfang <dqfext@...il.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 9:48 PM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> wrote:
> > With my minor changes:
> > Tested-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
>
> How about using a mutex lock in port_bridge_{join,leave} ?
> In my opinion all functions that access multiple registers should be
> synchronized.
That's one way, in some cases the framework (DSA) serialize
the accesses so I don't know if that already happens on a
higher level? Since it is accessed over a slow bus we should go
for mutex in that case indeed.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
Powered by blists - more mailing lists