[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <430c40fbef314217a8c2609b9aebbd90@BLUPR03MB373.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 01:50:53 +0000
From: "fugang.duan@...escale.com" <fugang.duan@...escale.com>
To: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
CC: "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"shawn.guo@...aro.org" <shawn.guo@...aro.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 1/1] net: fec: ptp: avoid register access when ipg
clock is disabled
From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 3:42 AM
>To: Duan Fugang-B38611
>Cc: davem@...emloft.net; netdev@...r.kernel.org; shawn.guo@...aro.org
>Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] net: fec: ptp: avoid register access when ipg
>clock is disabled
>
>On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 06:07:00AM +0000, fugang.duan@...escale.com wrote:
>> 1. Set the flag to false firstly.
>
>Yes.
>
>> 2. Don't need to add mutex to protect the flag.(My previous mail ask
>> one mutex to protect the flag)
>
>You *do* need a mutex to protect the state of the physical clock. One
>process might turn it off while another process is still reading it.
>
>> Just pull the flag into the protected field by spin_lock_irqsave()
>like :
>> fec_time_keep()
>
>No, the spin only protects the register access.
>
>Thanks,
>Richard
Ok, I will send the next version with mutex protect the physical clock state.
Thanks,
Andy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists