On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 20:20:42 +0800
Junlong Wang <wang.junlo...@zte.com.cn> wrote:
> +int32_t zxdh_acquire_lock(struct zxdh_hw *hw)
> +{
> + uint32_t var = zxdh_read_comm_reg((uint64_t)hw->common_cfg,
> ZXDH_VF_LOCK_REG);
> +
> + /* check whether lock is used */
> + if (!(var & ZXDH_VF_LOCK_ENABLE_MASK))
> + return -1;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +int32_t zxdh_release_lock(struct zxdh_hw *hw)
> +{
> + uint32_t var = zxdh_read_comm_reg((uint64_t)hw->common_cfg,
> ZXDH_VF_LOCK_REG);
> +
> + if (var & ZXDH_VF_LOCK_ENABLE_MASK) {
> + var &= ~ZXDH_VF_LOCK_ENABLE_MASK;
> + zxdh_write_comm_reg((uint64_t)hw->common_cfg, ZXDH_VF_LOCK_REG,
> var);
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + return -1;
> +}
> +
It is your driver, so you are free to name functions as appropriate.
But it would make more sense to make the hardware lock follow the pattern
of existing spinlock's etc.
