Hi,
On Friday 28 June 2013 03:41 PM, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
On 06/28/2013 10:17 AM, Hui Wang wrote:
On 06/26/2013 11:02 PM, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
Add a PHY provider driver for the Samsung S5P/Exynos SoC MIPI CSI-2
receiver and MIPI DSI transmitter DPHYs.
Signed-off-by: Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Changes since v2:
- adapted to the generic PHY API v9: use phy_set/get_drvdata(),
- fixed of_xlate callback to return ERR_PTR() instead of NULL,
- namespace cleanup, put "GPL v2" as MODULE_LICENSE, removed pr_debug,
- removed phy id check in __set_phy_state().
---
[...]
+
+ if (IS_EXYNOS_MIPI_DSIM_PHY_ID(id))
+ reset = EXYNOS_MIPI_PHY_MRESETN;
+ else
+ reset = EXYNOS_MIPI_PHY_SRESETN;
+
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&state->slock, flags);
Sorry for one stupid question here, why do you use spin_lock_irqsave()
rather than spin_lock(),
I don't see the irq handler will use this spinlock anywhere in this c file.
Yes, there is no chance the PHY users could call the phy ops from within
an interrupt context. Especially now when there is a per phy object
mutex used in the PHY operation helpers. So I'll replace it with plain
spin_lock/unlock. Thank you for the review.
Now that PHY ops is already protected, do you really need a spin_lock here?
Thanks
Kishon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
