From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Steven J. Hill" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Merge GT/MV642xx Support into MV643xx Driver [7/8] Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:10:26 -0500 Message-ID: <46A01992.1060907@realitydiluted.com> References: <469EEF13.2000607@realitydiluted.com> <20070719142159.GF12892@xyzzy.farnsworth.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Dale Farnsworth Return-path: Received: from real.realitydiluted.com ([66.43.201.61]:51433 "EHLO real.realitydiluted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752320AbXGTCK0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jul 2007 22:10:26 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070719142159.GF12892@xyzzy.farnsworth.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dale Farnsworth wrote: > > You have replaced the use of the global PHY spinlock with a per-port spinlock. > However, the SMI register is shared by all ports. The global lock is > needed to prevent simultaneous updates of the register by drivers for > multiple ports. > > NAK > Are you sure? Notice that a majority of the spinlocks were changed to disable IRQs. Secondly, the lowest level mv_read/mv_write functions have to acquire the big mv64x60_lock before they can read or write registers. I see the PHY spinlock as being an additional and unnecessary lock to contend with. Am I make an improper assumption? - -Steve -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGoBmSgyK5H2Ic36cRAj8JAKCfmg/T2FgOdYZ5YfnXJsiyn3RkaQCfadSk GS8ICyW0+qNRHr5QqnY0PUQ= =nvSB -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----