lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Mar]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH V12 2/4] ptp: Added a clock that uses the eTSEC found on the MPC85xx.
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 02:30:04PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 08:57 +0100, Richard Cochran wrote:
> > +/*
> > + * Register access functions
> > + */
>
> So what are the locking rules on the functions below? I assume the
> etsects->lock needs to be held prior to calling, so that should be made
> explicit in a comment.

Yes, you are right. I'll add comments.

> > + gfar_write(&etsects->regs->tmr_ctrl, tmr_ctrl);
> > + gfar_write(&etsects->regs->tmr_add, etsects->tmr_add);
> > + gfar_write(&etsects->regs->tmr_prsc, etsects->tmr_prsc);
> > + gfar_write(&etsects->regs->tmr_fiper1, etsects->tmr_fiper1);
> > + gfar_write(&etsects->regs->tmr_fiper2, etsects->tmr_fiper2);
> > + set_alarm(etsects);
> > + gfar_write(&etsects->regs->tmr_ctrl, tmr_ctrl|FS|RTPE|TE);
>
> Does any of the above need a lock should an irq land in the middle of
> the writes?

Since these interrupts first must be enabled, I think it unlikely that
an IRQ could occur. However, it can't hurt to add the lock, either.

Thanks,

Richard


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-03-26 14:27    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site