On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 09:40:48 -0700
Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org> wrote:
> 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.
I am suggesting:
static bool zxdh_try_lock(hw);
void zxdh_release_lock(hw);
also, move the loop into a new function, something like:
int zxdh_timedlock(hw, uint32_t us);
