[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231201094116.65956f60@bootlin.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2023 09:41:16 +0100
From: Herve Codina <herve.codina@...tlin.com>
To: "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: "Qiang Zhao" <qiang.zhao@....com>, "Leo Li" <leoyang.li@....com>,
"Jakub Kicinski" <kuba@...nel.org>,
"Shengjiu Wang" <shengjiu.wang@...il.com>,
"Xiubo Li" <Xiubo.Lee@...il.com>,
"Fabio Estevam" <festevam@...il.com>,
"Nicolin Chen" <nicoleotsuka@...il.com>,
"Liam Girdwood" <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
"Mark Brown" <broonie@...nel.org>,
"Jaroslav Kysela" <perex@...ex.cz>,
"Takashi Iwai" <tiwai@...e.com>,
"Christophe Leroy" <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
"Thomas Petazzoni" <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/17] soc: fsl: cpm1: qmc: Handle timeslot entries at
channel start() and stop()
Hi Arnd,
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 15:03:02 +0100
"Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023, at 15:08, Herve Codina wrote:
> > @@ -272,6 +274,8 @@ int qmc_chan_get_info(struct qmc_chan *chan, struct
> > qmc_chan_info *info)
> > if (ret)
> > return ret;
> >
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&chan->ts_lock, flags);
> > +
> > info->mode = chan->mode;
> > info->rx_fs_rate = tsa_info.rx_fs_rate;
> > info->rx_bit_rate = tsa_info.rx_bit_rate;
> > @@ -280,6 +284,8 @@ int qmc_chan_get_info(struct qmc_chan *chan, struct
> > qmc_chan_info *info)
> > info->tx_bit_rate = tsa_info.tx_bit_rate;
> > info->nb_rx_ts = hweight64(chan->rx_ts_mask);
> >
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&chan->ts_lock, flags);
> > +
> > return 0;
> > }
>
> I would normally use spin_lock_irq() instead of spin_lock_irqsave()
> in functions that are only called outside of atomic context.
I would prefer to keep spin_lock_irqsave() here.
This function is part of the API and so, its quite difficult to ensure
that all calls (current and future) will be done outside of an atomic
context.
>
> > +static int qmc_chan_start_rx(struct qmc_chan *chan);
> > +
> > int qmc_chan_stop(struct qmc_chan *chan, int direction)
> > {
> ...
> > -static void qmc_chan_start_rx(struct qmc_chan *chan)
> > +static int qmc_setup_chan_trnsync(struct qmc *qmc, struct qmc_chan *chan);
> > +
> > +static int qmc_chan_start_rx(struct qmc_chan *chan)
> > {
>
> Can you reorder the static functions in a way that avoids the
> forward declarations?
Yes, sure.
I will do that in the next iteration.
Thanks for the review,
Best regards,
Hervé
Powered by blists - more mailing lists