From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kishon Vijay Abraham I Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] phy: Add driver for Exynos MIPI CSIS/DSIM DPHYs Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2013 14:27:59 +0530 Message-ID: <51CEA197.8070207@ti.com> References: <1372258946-15607-1-git-send-email-s.nawrocki@samsung.com> <1372258946-15607-2-git-send-email-s.nawrocki@samsung.com> <51CD4698.3070409@gmail.com> <51CD6153.5050406@samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <51CD6153.5050406@samsung.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Sylwester Nawrocki Cc: linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, t.figa@samsung.com, jg1.han@samsung.com, dh09.lee@samsung.com, balbi@ti.com, inki.dae@samsung.com, kyungmin.park@samsung.com, Hui Wang , kgene.kim@samsung.com, plagnioj@jcrosoft.com, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org 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 >>> Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park >>> --- >>> 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