On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Jon Smirl <jonsm...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 6:26 AM, Mark Brown > <broo...@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> wrote: >>> + spin_lock(&psc_dma->lock); >>> + out_be32(&psc_dma->psc_regs->ac97_slots, psc_dma->slots); >>> + spin_unlock(&psc_dma->lock); >>> + break; >> >> This locking looks wrong - I'd expect it to also cover the modification >> of psc_dma->slots? Otherwise it's hard to see what it buys you. > > Grant, why are you spin locking around register access?
This lock/unlock is definitely bogus since a single register access is already atomic. Are there places in the code that I wrote where a spin_lock/unlock is done around a single register access? g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
