[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y0/yWHvHs6NHdB8W@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:49:28 +0100
From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To: Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@....com>
Cc: peppe.cavallaro@...com, alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com,
joabreu@...opsys.com, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-imx@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: stmmac: linkup phy after enabled mac when system
resume
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 08:36:43PM +0800, Clark Wang wrote:
> + mutex_unlock(&priv->lock);
> + if (device_may_wakeup(priv->device) && priv->plat->pmt) {
> + phylink_resume(priv->phylink);
> + } else {
> + phylink_resume(priv->phylink);
> + if (device_may_wakeup(priv->device))
> + phylink_speed_up(priv->phylink);
> + }
> + mutex_lock(&priv->lock);
First, is there a reason this isn't coded as:
mutex_unlock(&priv->lock);
phylink_resume(priv->phylink);
if (!priv->plat->pmt && device_may_wakeup(priv->device))
phylink_speed_up(priv->phylink);
mutex_lock(&priv->lock);
And secondly, is it really safe to drop this lock? What specifically
is the lock protecting? I see this isn't documented in the driver...
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists