[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=XbfBf9y1sdt9T=81cTCRcRUbVqo3oKrHvBQZC+hHQpCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2023 09:51:08 -0700
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To: Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@...e.qmqm.pl>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>,
Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] regulator: core: simplify lock_two()
Hi,
On Sat, Aug 19, 2023 at 3:46 PM Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@...e.qmqm.pl> wrote:
>
> Make regulator_lock_two() shorter by observing that we have only two
> locks and when swapped earlier the retry code becomes identical to the
> normal (optimistic) path.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@...e.qmqm.pl>
> ---
> drivers/regulator/core.c | 28 ++++++++++------------------
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
This is quite nearly a direct revert of commit 37473397b852
("regulator: core: Make regulator_lock_two() logic easier to follow"),
which was requested by Stephen in:
https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAE-0n53Eb1BeDPmjBycXUaQAF4ppiAM6UDWje_jiB9GAmR8MMw@mail.gmail.com
I don't personally have a strong opinion, but do prefer not to flip-flop. ;-)
-Doug
Powered by blists - more mailing lists