Re: [PATCH] ASoC: si476x: Remove custom register I/O implementation

[Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 985 bytes --]

On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 08:53:58AM -0700, Andrey Smirnov wrote:

> > OK, so if it's purely about send_command() then why is the locking not
> > being done in that function?  Surely the most obvious and robust place
> > to protect the function is within the function itself?

> Not having send_command acquire any locks allows me to have variable
> levels of granularity of locking, for example in the worker thread
> that fetches RDS data from the chip it allows me to get exclusive
> access to the chip for the duration of the FIFO draining. Also any
> band switch for that chip, like AM to FM, etc. require chip to be
> power cycled which translates to multiple calls to send_command as
> well, I think having those performed atomically simplifies the driver
> as well.

Right, so it's not just protecting send_command() but is instead
protecting higher level things.  In that case shouldn't the locking be
performed further up in this driver too rather than on each register
write?

[-- Attachment #1.2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 0 bytes --]