linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] ASoC: atmel: mchp-pdmc: Retain Non-Runtime Controls

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240912095337.41507-1-andrei.simion@microchip.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 12:53:38 +0300
From: Andrei Simion <andrei.simion@...rochip.com>
To: <claudiu.beznea@...on.dev>
CC: <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>, <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
	<andrei.simion@...rochip.com>, <broonie@...nel.org>,
	<codrin.ciubotariu@...rochip.com>, <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-sound@...r.kernel.org>, <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>,
	<perex@...ex.cz>, <tiwai@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ASoC: atmel: mchp-pdmc: Retain Non-Runtime Controls

>>  struct mchp_pdmc {
>>  	struct mic_map channel_mic_map[MCHP_PDMC_MAX_CHANNELS];
>> +	spinlock_t busy_lock;		/* lock protecting busy */
>>  	struct device *dev;
>>  	struct snd_dmaengine_dai_dma_data addr;
>>  	struct regmap *regmap;
>> @@ -124,6 +126,7 @@ struct mchp_pdmc {
>>  	int mic_no;
>>  	int sinc_order;
>>  	bool audio_filter_en;
>> +	u8 busy:1;

> Can the spinlock and busy flag be replaced by an atomic variable?

I will use atomic_t variable with atomic_set and atomic_read.
I will do a test and send V2.

>>  };
>>
>>  static const char *const mchp_pdmc_sinc_filter_order_text[] = {
>> @@ -167,10 +170,19 @@ static int mchp_pdmc_sinc_order_put(struct snd_kcontrol *kcontrol,
>>  		return -EINVAL;
>>
>>  	val = snd_soc_enum_item_to_val(e, item[0]) << e->shift_l;
>> -	if (val == dd->sinc_order)
>> +
>> +	spin_lock(&dd->busy_lock);
>> +	if (dd->busy) {
>> +		spin_unlock((&dd->busy_lock));

> You can remove () around (&dd->busy_lock). Valid for the rest of occurrences.

OK. Got it!

>> +		return -EBUSY;
>> +	}
>> +	if (val == dd->sinc_order) {
>> +		spin_unlock((&dd->busy_lock));
>>  		return 0;
>> +	}
>>
>>  	dd->sinc_order = val;
>> +	spin_unlock((&dd->busy_lock));
>>
>>  	return 1;
>>  }