From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F390C433E0 for ; Thu, 14 May 2020 01:20:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E5C5205ED for ; Thu, 14 May 2020 01:20:02 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=lunn.ch header.i=@lunn.ch header.b="WTGqB+RA" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728188AbgENBUB (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 May 2020 21:20:01 -0400 Received: from vps0.lunn.ch ([185.16.172.187]:59330 "EHLO vps0.lunn.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725973AbgENBUB (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 May 2020 21:20:01 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lunn.ch; s=20171124; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID: Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=2LZY55O6zVcp3oG05Y3uMwkk+MYsChTkwRYC0/wutG4=; b=WTGqB+RAk2U8k+ONdDcMfjDpmL hHvM43wa8a+VactWb2Q2kwz5Q7cotVFlxoM1b2MnJrDbrZ3qDSqIU2zQT+4LTriWX0HrwDEVqyXeC t+GGiQct2mlcFfm8wSO1WY6iOTuJOYEnW1Yl/TiPH6HWUJCa+29cxDm6ltfbjcw836OU=; Received: from andrew by vps0.lunn.ch with local (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from ) id 1jZ2XV-002Elp-Mr; Thu, 14 May 2020 03:19:57 +0200 Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 03:19:57 +0200 From: Andrew Lunn To: Marek Vasut Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, "David S . Miller" , Lukas Wunner , Petr Stetiar , YueHaibing Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 10/19] net: ks8851: Factor out bus lock handling Message-ID: <20200514011957.GF527401@lunn.ch> References: <20200514000747.159320-1-marex@denx.de> <20200514000747.159320-11-marex@denx.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200514000747.159320-11-marex@denx.de> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 02:07:38AM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > Pull out bus access locking code into separate functions, this is done > in preparation for unifying the driver with the parallel bus one. The > parallel bus driver does not need heavy mutex locking of the bus and > works better with spinlocks, hence prepare these locking functions to > be overridden then. > > Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut > Cc: David S. Miller > Cc: Lukas Wunner > Cc: Petr Stetiar > Cc: YueHaibing > +/** > + * ks8851_lock - register access lock > + * @ks: The chip state > + * @flags: Spinlock flags > + * > + * Claim chip register access lock > + */ > +static void ks8851_lock(struct ks8851_net *ks, unsigned long *flags) > +{ > + mutex_lock(&ks->lock); > +} Do you actually need flags? It is for spin_lock_irqsave(). Which you use when you have a critical section inside an interrupt handler. But a mutex cannot protect against an interrupt handler. So there should be no need to use spin_lock_irqsave(), spin_lock() should be enough, and that does not need flags. Andrew