Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] i2c: iproc: Add Broadcom iProc I2C Driver

Wolfram Sang
2015-01-18T11:07:12Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1122 bytes --]

On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 10:47:41AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 10:14:04AM +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> > On 01/17/15 00:42, Ray Jui wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > >+/*
> > >+ * Can be expanded in the future if more interrupt status bits are utilized
> > >+ */
> > >+#define ISR_MASK (1<< IS_M_START_BUSY_SHIFT)
> > >+
> > >+static irqreturn_t bcm_iproc_i2c_isr(int irq, void *data)
> > >+{
> > >+ struct bcm_iproc_i2c_dev *iproc_i2c = data;
> > >+ u32 status = readl(iproc_i2c->base + IS_OFFSET);
> > >+
> > >+ status&= ISR_MASK;
> > >+
> > >+ if (!status)
> > >+ return IRQ_NONE;
> > >+
> > >+ writel(status, iproc_i2c->base + IS_OFFSET);
> > >+ complete_all(&iproc_i2c->done);
> >
> > Looking over this code it seems to me there is always a single
> > process waiting for iproc_i2c->done to complete. So using complete()
> > here would suffice.
> Yeah, there is always only a single thread waiting. That means both
> complete and complete_all are suitable. AFAIK there is no reason to pick
> one over the other in this case.

Clarity?

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]