[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241101093132.7770799c@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2024 09:31:32 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Lei Wei <quic_leiwei@...cinc.com>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Rob
Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor
Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
quic_kkumarcs@...cinc.com, quic_suruchia@...cinc.com,
quic_pavir@...cinc.com, quic_linchen@...cinc.com, quic_luoj@...cinc.com,
srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org, bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org,
vsmuthu@....qualcomm.com, john@...ozen.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/5] net: pcs: qcom-ipq: Add PCS create and
phylink operations for IPQ9574
On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 14:21:24 +0100 Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > + /* Access to PCS registers such as PCS_MODE_CTRL which are
> > + * common to all MIIs, is lock protected and configured
> > + * only once. This is required only for interface modes
> > + * such as QSGMII.
> > + */
> > + if (interface == PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_QSGMII)
> > + mutex_lock(&qpcs->config_lock);
>
> Is there a lot of contention on this lock? Why not take it for every
> interface mode? It would make the code simpler.
+1
--
pw-bot: cr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists