On 03/15/2017 11:11 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On 14/03/17 16:23, Varsha Rao wrote: >> Remove mutex_lock() and mutex_unlock() function calls, as the >> adis16240_spi_read_signed() function can be run parallel and safely >> multiple times. Also remove the mutex.h header file and comment, which >> are no longer required. >> >> As indio_dev is declared and initialized in adis16240_spi_read_signed(), >> again declaration to same type and initialization to same value is not >> required, remove it from adis16240_read_12bit_signed(). >> >> Simplify the return logic, by merging assignment and return into a single >> line. >> >> Signed-off-by: Varsha Rao <rvarsha016@xxxxxxxxx> > It's a bit obscure, but isn't there the potential to get the check_status > call spitting out text for the wrong read, or potentially miss a status > value entirely? > > (kind of more for Lars really, but feel free to comment Varsha!) > > The various faults look like this wouldn't be an issue, but I'm not > totally sure about the SPI failure and whether a following good read > at exactly the wrong time might result in the error not being reported... I don't think it matters. The error reporting is asynchronous anyway and the bits are read-to-clear. So even if two access see the error flag set in the data only one of them will be able to read the bits in the diag_stat register (unless the error is persistent, in which case the error flag in the data would also be persistent). -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
