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    [W:0.019 / U:3.464 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site