On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 01:30:44PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 06:38:05PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> > - if (!list_empty(&nvec->tx_data))
> > - gpio_set_value(nvec->gpio, 0);
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&nvec->tx_lock, flags);
> > + while (!list_empty(&nvec->tx_data)) {
> > + msg = list_first_entry(&nvec->tx_data, struct nvec_msg, node);
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&nvec->tx_lock, flags);
> > + nvec_gpio_set_value(nvec, 0);
> > + if (!(wait_for_completion_interruptible_timeout(
> > + &nvec->ec_transfer, msecs_to_jiffies(5000)))) {
> > + dev_warn(nvec->dev, "timeout waiting for ec transfer\n");
> > + nvec_gpio_set_value(nvec, 1);
> > + msg->pos = 0;
> > + } else {
> > + list_del_init(&msg->node);
> > + nvec_msg_free(nvec, msg);
>
> This should be under the ->tx_lock lock.
OK.
> > +static void nvec_rx_completed(struct nvec_chip *nvec)
[...]
> The irqsave and irqrestore aren't needed because this function is
> only called from the irq handler. Otherwise the nvec->state on the
> next line would have to be protected by the lock.
OK. This probably also means that the local_irq_save() and
local_irq_restore() in nvec_interrupt() are unneeded as
well, right?
--
Julian Andres Klode - Debian Developer, Ubuntu Member
See http://wiki.debian.org/JulianAndresKlode and http://jak-linux.org/.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
