"Basak, Partha" <p-basak2@xxxxxx> writes:
>> +/* Attempt to acquire a spinlock once */
>> +int hwspinlock_trylock(struct hwspinlock *handle)
>> +{
>> + int retval = 0;
>> +
>> + if (WARN_ON(handle == NULL))
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + if (WARN_ON(in_irq()))
>> + return -EPERM;
>> +
>> + if (pm_runtime_get(&handle->pdev->dev) < 0)
>> + return -ENODEV;
>> +
>> + /* Attempt to acquire the lock by reading from it */
>> + retval = readl(handle->lock_reg);
>> +
>> + if (retval == HWSPINLOCK_BUSY)
>> + pm_runtime_put(&handle->pdev->dev);
>
> Any reason for using pm_runtime_put instead of pm_runtime_put_sync?
>
> Using pm_runtime_gett_sync & pm_runtime_put_sync have been recommended
> by Kevin Hilman.
err, not exacly.
I recommend use of the runtime PM API. Driver writers can decide
whether they want to use the _sync() version of the API (which has
immediate side effect) or the normal version which may have delayed side
effect.
Kevin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
