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 vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32762C61DA3 for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2023 16:59:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233304AbjBUQ7H (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Feb 2023 11:59:07 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:60964 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234376AbjBUQ66 (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Feb 2023 11:58:58 -0500 Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD9D21EBF2 for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2023 08:58:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1676998734; x=1708534734; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=iNxcRpw3Aa3BSYJT+x7q59TeKiNbc5wL89PaUfpKUrE=; b=UqsNoMqc/+DxomCk1lx+eU1hA4B00fbCKGIkZRp6owEnSk01+DWER4zw hbQr9+Al1ctN9OaKvhTC5cgnUoLHEsscuOp7SQ0kSGyOOzLnxzjo3W4Dc 4/WTBMFU8shEN9Tm97hLPVYEzvYd0ZsOLlDM2eM5FQ+NKk8FUNKuTky5j GwPo/5Q3smBvEQ81U683NJcka0OZ1mm4LDy5Xtc+T87PXFa+Uqdcao1Cq T0H14OoQvaemRyfKRtF4WZ0JrfioVroZP9kkV+Pgcvv0G+jCDEXtsQRaS cqPVYA0FjmRm0kcrW/6P07CBfNK7SLbjkheeUknjDUrYtpz5UJ915oCbV g==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6500,9779,10628"; a="334884671" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.97,315,1669104000"; d="scan'208";a="334884671" Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Feb 2023 08:58:39 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6500,9779,10628"; a="814569107" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.97,315,1669104000"; d="scan'208";a="814569107" Received: from taevough-mobl.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.209.174.213]) ([10.209.174.213]) by fmsmga001-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Feb 2023 08:58:37 -0800 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2023 11:05:48 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/102.0 Thunderbird/102.7.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 5/8] soundwire: amd: add SoundWire manager interrupt handling Content-Language: en-US To: Vijendar Mukunda , vkoul@kernel.org Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, amadeuszx.slawinski@linux.intel.com, Mario.Limonciello@amd.com, Sunil-kumar.Dommati@amd.com, Basavaraj.Hiregoudar@amd.com, Mastan.Katragadda@amd.com, Arungopal.kondaveeti@amd.com, Bard Liao , Sanyog Kale , open list References: <20230220100418.76754-1-Vijendar.Mukunda@amd.com> <20230220100418.76754-6-Vijendar.Mukunda@amd.com> From: Pierre-Louis Bossart In-Reply-To: <20230220100418.76754-6-Vijendar.Mukunda@amd.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > +static void amd_sdw_read_and_process_ping_status(struct amd_sdw_manager *amd_manager) > +{ > + u64 response; > + > + mutex_lock(&amd_manager->bus.msg_lock); > + response = amd_sdw_send_cmd_get_resp(amd_manager, 0, 0); > + mutex_unlock(&amd_manager->bus.msg_lock); > + amd_sdw_process_ping_status(response, amd_manager); do you have a case where a new command could be sent after the mutex_unlock(), which could change the response fields? In other words, should the last amd_sdw_process_ping_status() function be protected as well? > +}