Hi Pavan,
* Pavan Savoy <pavan_savoy@xxxxxxxx> [2010-11-17 11:13:26 +0530]:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 4:50 AM, Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> + /* Registration with ST layer is successful,
> >>> + * hardware is ready to accept commands from HCI core.
> >>> + */
> >>> + if (test_and_set_bit(HCI_RUNNING, &hdev->flags)) {
> >>> + clear_bit(HCI_RUNNING, &hdev->flags);
> >>> + err = st_unregister(ST_BT);
> >>> + if (err)
> >>> + BT_ERR("st_unregister() failed with error %d", err);
> >>> + hst->st_write = NULL;
> >>> + }
> >>
> >>
> >> What are you trying to do here? test_and_set_bit() result doesn't say
> >> nothing about error and you shall put test_and_set_bit should be in the
> >> beginning, to know if your device is already opened or not and then
> >> clear_bit if some error ocurrs during the function.
> >>
> >
> > Yeap, this piece of code beats me is well. Why is it an error if this
> > bit wasn't already set?
>
> Vitaly, Gustavo,
>
> I suppose I never understood HCI_RUNNING flag that way, as in an error
> check mechanism to avoid multiple hci0 ups.
>
> What I understood was that HCI_RUNNING suggested as to when hci0 was
> ready to be used. With this understanding, I wanted to make sure I
> downloaded the firmware for the chip before I proclaim to the world
> that the hci0 is ready to be used, as in HCI_RUNNING.
>
> For example, I didn't want my _send_frame to be called before I did
> the firmware download - since firmware download takes time - 45kb
> send/wait commands :(
>
> But I suppose I now understand - What I would rather do is test_bit in
> the beginning of function and do a set_bit at the end of function -
> does this make sense ?
It does, but does it as test_and_set and then clear if error as we do in
other drivers.
--
Gustavo F. Padovan
http://profusion.mobi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bluetooth" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
