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 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7DBDFCD37BE for ; Mon, 11 May 2026 17:21:21 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To: From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=aD6rQz3VOJfmhMMBY5zODZr66WINb02FrK259Yv8dcs=; b=aP6eRFaslvttr0eGmR0uzF2qST QANb4wc/Q9uaHkLS4DNGF6YqeWccSAaTwNXZWLnDnfRboOKSw0q/1Qm3ZeJd1yRGkVmiQ0oOsgLYo vDPz1Sfs3BNaxmm0IGA0fMuAjbVgJBHao4HJDVVnXMGLQAYx2/wwsQtYLn5iJsRu4BESw+4Pn//Tq sfUXf4vUsMtNJK+4sX5QjzS3CfMUdixGLgODFy8OhBlL1CcvHUkLIl6u2Mzb5/FOnaNYwsTGZA1QF Ynm1laj/OO8h12/MQuBmRDK1sAZRHCZqSO1sWAZzyZXNpHK9yJzplZnMeyFjcLKX3tKKPgOYjFPN2 eKSythjQ==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1wMUJf-0000000ELQ7-0HpH; Mon, 11 May 2026 17:21:15 +0000 Received: from sea.source.kernel.org ([172.234.252.31]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1wMUJc-0000000ELOp-0TZ4 for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 11 May 2026 17:21:14 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (transwarp.subspace.kernel.org [100.75.92.58]) by sea.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F41F4047A; Mon, 11 May 2026 17:21:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DB324C2BCB0; Mon, 11 May 2026 17:21:06 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1778520071; bh=eqp4K//W8NdnJQWNnhieEj19AwFeTei9C6+KiP1FPtw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=UAuBHJWrCuOhZcfe3xzZotvbVkH1DE+hD0KvkKNqWnulK/7C5sFxEkZuIwv/AAp/O zDRGCmUFXQ4Xq7fGVhctwI5chAEUcXeVEWdT/EPhOrWlR6uEitFSSdRPCGhKz1g60W FYgIHoQsBZ3IS4uDgeH5I5wHH1/0Nu6x7CuhCPqJzNEhDpTSvIcAuzOiDREBqXMOam NdynMBAPAeffpzgGZ8Dijr/2kV8POOjzZEaAEciyfFKblARGYyXQuyFNPLd8Tv56PY 1E4lJ6dXiDvAhzAQgnBbxz/PKSQ7EZD9ypKKjxg1BMpduS3MDHsexT1VBK7T+aqqLf 68niCP+AfqOWw== Date: Mon, 11 May 2026 18:21:01 +0100 From: Jonathan Cameron To: Maxwell Doose Cc: Sanjay Chitroda , salih.erim@amd.com, conall.ogriofa@amd.com, michal.simek@amd.com, David Lechner , Nuno =?UTF-8?B?U8Oh?= , Andy Shevchenko , linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] iio: adc: xilinx-ams: Replace spin_lock() and unlock() calls with guard(spinlock*)() Message-ID: <20260511182101.705a5c1c@jic23-huawei> In-Reply-To: References: <20260508124513.17752-1-m32285159@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.4.0 (GTK 3.24.52; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.9.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20260511_102113_399068_43947824 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 18.18 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Fri, 8 May 2026 13:53:11 -0500 Maxwell Doose wrote: > On Fri, May 8, 2026 at 1:50=E2=80=AFPM Sanjay Chitroda > wrote: > > > > Hi Maxwell, > > > > Thanks for the resource cleanup change. > > > > Overall looks good. > > > > Also, there is opportunity for guard(mutex)(). > > =20 >=20 > Thanks, of course I'd also be happy to do the transition to > guard(mutex)() but it seems like something for tomorrow evening since > I've already submitted a lot to the mailing list. Nice patch and well noted by Sanjay - I'd have just applied this without checking for that :) I think sensible to do one patch that deals with guard() for both mutex and spinlock. Sometimes the Xilinx folk do review so I'll leave this a while longer anyway in the hope they have time to take a look. It's a safe change set but none the less nice to give time! Thanks, Jonathan >=20 > best regards, > max >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > > > > Thanks, > > Sanjay Chitroda > > > > =20