Hi Youngmin, 2016-01-19 0:21 GMT+09:00 Youngmin Nam <ym0914@xxxxxxxxx>: > Previously, samsung_gpio_drection_in/output function were not covered with > one spinlock. > Thanks for the patch, nice catch. One nitpick inline, though. > For example, samsung_gpio_direction_output function consists of two functions. > 1. samsung_gpio_set > 2. samsung_gpio_set_direction [snip] > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-samsung.c > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-samsung.c > @@ -524,20 +524,26 @@ static void samsung_gpio_set(struct gpio_chip *gc, unsigned offset, int value) Can we, for consistency purposes, rename this function to samsung_gpio_set_value() and keep the one that does locking as samsung_gpio_set()? This way we would match the gpio_chip op name (.set) and also have both functions with the same name template (set_value and set_direction) follow the same semantics of not doing any locking. Also adding a comment above the new samsung_gpio_set_value() and existing samsung_gpio_set_direction() that they have to be called with bank->slock held would be helpful to avoid similar bugs in the future. Best regards, Tomasz -- 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
 |