[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3a161d2c-6d61-4ba4-99ea-5f8a376610bd@nvidia.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2025 16:14:10 +0000
From: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
To: Akhil R <akhilrajeev@...dia.com>
Cc: andi.shyti@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
digetx@...il.com, kkartik@...dia.com, krzk+dt@...nel.org,
ldewangan@...dia.com, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, robh@...nel.org,
thierry.reding@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 3/4] i2c: tegra: Add support for SW mutex register
On 28/10/2025 12:54, Akhil R wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2025 16:42:06 +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:
>> On 01/10/2025 07:47, Kartik Rajput wrote:
>>> static void tegra_i2c_mask_irq(struct tegra_i2c_dev *i2c_dev, u32 mask)
>>> {
>>> u32 int_mask;
>>> @@ -1432,6 +1512,10 @@ static int tegra_i2c_xfer(struct i2c_adapter *adap, struct i2c_msg msgs[],
>>> return ret;
>>> }
>>>
>>> + ret = tegra_i2c_mutex_lock(i2c_dev);
>>> + if (ret)
>>> + return ret;
>>> +
>>>
>>> I wonder if it would be better to have a wrapper function around
>>> tegra_i2c_xfer() called tegra264_i2c_xfer() that is only used for
>>> Tegra264 platforms and invokes these sw-mutex functions?
>
> Wouldn't this only add another 'if' condition to tegra_i2c_xfer()?
> And probably making it more complex? Or am I missing something?
I was thinking we could define a tegra264_i2c_algo but I guess we need
another if condition at some point some where. So let's leave as-is for now.
Jon
--
nvpublic
Powered by blists - more mailing lists