On 2/19/25 23:56, Markus Elfring wrote:
> …
>> +++ b/drivers/media/platform/synopsys/hdmirx/snps_hdmirx.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,2718 @@
> …
>> +static u32 hdmirx_readl(struct snps_hdmirx_dev *hdmirx_dev, int reg)
>> +{
>> + u32 val;
>> +
>> + guard(spinlock_irqsave)(&hdmirx_dev->rst_lock);
>> +
>> + val = readl(hdmirx_dev->regs + reg);
>> +
>> + return val;
>> +}
>
> May such a function implementation be simplified?
>
> {
> guard(spinlock_irqsave)(&hdmirx_dev->rst_lock);
> return readl(hdmirx_dev->regs + reg);
> }
That will work, thanks.
> …
>> +static int hdmirx_get_detected_timings(struct snps_hdmirx_dev *hdmirx_dev,
>> + struct v4l2_dv_timings *timings)
>> +{
> …
>> + mutex_lock(&hdmirx_dev->work_lock);
>> +retry:
>> + memset(timings, 0, sizeof(struct v4l2_dv_timings));
> …
>> + mutex_unlock(&hdmirx_dev->work_lock);
>> +
>> + return ret;
>> +}
> …
>
> Would you become interested to apply a statement like “guard(mutex)(&hdmirx_dev->work_lock);”?
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.14-rc3/source/include/linux/mutex.h#L201
That will make code less consistent and less intuitive to me. Anyways,
thanks for the suggestion.
--
Best regards,
Dmitry
