From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH] OMAP: McBSP: Do not use extensive spin locks for dma_op_mode Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:00:09 +0000 Message-ID: <20091027120009.GA19323@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> References: <1256641215-26131-1-git-send-email-peter.ujfalusi@nokia.com> <1256641643.30157.339.camel@eenurkka-desktop> <200910271317.52638.peter.ujfalusi@nokia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200910271317.52638.peter.ujfalusi@nokia.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org To: Peter Ujfalusi Cc: "tony@atomide.com" , "alsa-devel@alsa-project.org" , "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" , "Valentin Eduardo (Nokia-D/Helsinki)" , "Nurkkala Eero.An (EXT-Offcode/Oulu)" List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 01:17:52PM +0200, Peter Ujfalusi wrote: > On Tuesday 27 October 2009 13:07:23 Nurkkala Eero.An (EXT-Offcode/Oulu) wrote: > > You may wish to double read the message above, as it's quite > > confusing =) > Yes it is ;) > I have left one spinlock around the dma_op_mode, when it also protects the > mcbsp->active, so that is why that last sentence. I have to confess that I'm still not entirely clear what the lock is supposed to be doing or why it's OK to drop it. I gather that it's just that dmap_on_mode() doesn't need a lock at all?