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=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 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 F361CC43331 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 13:59:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C44DF2073E for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 13:59:47 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="b4z01HGo" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727834AbgCZN7q (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Mar 2020 09:59:46 -0400 Received: from mail-pj1-f66.google.com ([209.85.216.66]:34249 "EHLO mail-pj1-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727652AbgCZN7q (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Mar 2020 09:59:46 -0400 Received: by mail-pj1-f66.google.com with SMTP id q16so3377425pje.1; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 06:59:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=79P2l9w6W7WmPQUzQ+lJdPeSs/MsFdNWFgy77EXy/Go=; b=b4z01HGoSxY5I0/OAnoCK6nGMFAC1VJ4jxpk/xkeTi9zg7bhvnhhyw2bpS5KNad8k5 jQnuLCuT1XNyCftzpCICXIcXnLmXKtxoQpnET++j7lTEzxTyfYs1tRj39lGjDXBq4AX+ ywpMk5sxyBfx6DMCZQ/Xh0sPoi5rXhdEvifSk8t73g3vtI98JDi3YuV8Huwp2fjfExBa bzUovrtfu+EScEwu7UROnDiHu1CD2L8OLseGYJmJZwmhd8cUYmhdoDDTkAQZVQi41m2l jf90ann2F6O5y86kvfilisX7ozjs5RDMEySEOsIG1ysahwREQXizj2Yxylef1jWgzJK8 tyrg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=79P2l9w6W7WmPQUzQ+lJdPeSs/MsFdNWFgy77EXy/Go=; b=m8IpQ9j3XQ+cs3Mal6Pjuy33gxXu5GCplSVDPO/NhBnZqf0USWLMhOy5sTCLii/idT PncLJ5vpmm4KhsMAvSclvhd5SAYhn+FCCdX4NBPjVx1wH8uZR74uCxM9vq91f/nzWLsL 4I9RHc22l+2FCTAU9/3A0vWBt/T2ZVzRpf3rGqfMWY84FFNAJM+ZM6ahRHB0nmGJzY/y qW/Fc7hPHoZ4z3fYx8oqmCDGoKLN6Hz9aBHLpXicF7MB7y0VfitI1F3VwgELCXZqnR+K r5gUxNxerteg4OldXU7LJ6Xvm68TNmEblIxb/2i4nSKgWK0CdkBMIwH6pK3MwBHliG04 El5g== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ31Egtv+pyANpWGHu3qSod0SoDd1P2v0oRaaYUSOY8qMliRJEeo 5p7khKFXXh2CX2nx0vlgu7lf3AZ2 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vsAZr6eD+eeAF+Sdv+/hG+glh6sOhao9VufpzChwNHCKOnD+wATO0o3BmrDtxASVd0N/wlhMA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:2dc2:: with SMTP id q2mr146980pjm.146.1585231183920; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 06:59:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (c-73-241-114-122.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [73.241.114.122]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t4sm1772471pfb.156.2020.03.26.06.59.42 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 26 Mar 2020 06:59:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 06:59:41 -0700 From: Richard Cochran To: "Y.b. Lu" Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "David S . Miller" , Vladimir Oltean , Claudiu Manoil , Andrew Lunn , Vivien Didelot , Florian Fainelli , Alexandre Belloni , Microchip Linux Driver Support Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] ptp_ocelot: support 4 programmable pins Message-ID: <20200326135941.GA20841@localhost> References: <20200320103726.32559-1-yangbo.lu@nxp.com> <20200320103726.32559-7-yangbo.lu@nxp.com> <20200324130733.GA18149@localhost> <20200325134147.GB32284@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 09:34:52AM +0000, Y.b. Lu wrote: > > Of course, that is horrible, and I am going to find a way to fix it. > > Thanks a lot. > Do you think it is ok to move protection into ptp_set_pinfunc() to protect just pin_config accessing? > ptp_disable_pinfunc() not touching pin_config could be out of protection. > But it seems indeed total ptp_set_pinfunc() should be under protection... Yes, and I have way to fix that. I will post a patch soon... > I could modify commit messages to indicate the pin supports both PTP_PF_PEROUT and PTP_PF_EXTTS, and PTP_PF_EXTTS support will be added in the future. Thanks for explaining. Since you do have programmable pin, please wait for my patch to fix the deadlock. Thanks, Richard