[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20260116-frisky-heavenly-pig-953fa4@quoll>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2026 10:00:28 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Brian Masney <bmasney@...hat.com>
Cc: Anirudh Srinivasan <asrinivasan@....tenstorrent.com>,
Drew Fustini <dfustini@....tenstorrent.com>, Joel Stanley <jms@....tenstorrent.com>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, joel@....id.au, fustini@...nel.org, mpe@...nel.org,
mpe@....tenstorrent.com, npiggin@....tenstorrent.com, agross@...nel.org,
agross@....tenstorrent.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] clk: tenstorrent: Add Atlantis clock controller
driver
On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 09:05:35PM -0500, Brian Masney wrote:
>
> > +static void atlantis_ccu_lock(void *_lock)
> > +{
> > + spinlock_t *lock = _lock;
> > +
> > + spin_lock(lock);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void atlantis_ccu_unlock(void *_lock)
> > +{
> > + spinlock_t *lock = _lock;
> > +
> > + spin_unlock(lock);
> > +}
>
> Are these abstractions really needed? Why not just call spin_lock/unlock
> directly?
They are actually harmful - make code less readable and introduce very
poor (lose) API accepting whatever pointer... This is exactly code which
should notbe here.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists