From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33F36C433FE for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2022 11:18:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230476AbiATLSb (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jan 2022 06:18:31 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:44382 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230429AbiATLS2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jan 2022 06:18:28 -0500 Received: from mail-ed1-x52a.google.com (mail-ed1-x52a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52a]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F192DC061574; Thu, 20 Jan 2022 03:18:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ed1-x52a.google.com with SMTP id b13so27401866edn.0; Thu, 20 Jan 2022 03:18:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=wYznKRiK5g7CfFmaVdNvA0d2kFj3axg/oPfOo8yHfjI=; b=dN1JxNjzaE6UypiJKF16uylqBOqi3bSxi3++gJeedb4nf+GlXG/9wwYo90YWmgQr3X dLV4hYuvI8QOJnTVGYYznGTVPYs64OOhUq5jERz7xSJv1ZzQAlCcQzjabSrd48mUmPQX CTYWzGzZgBPllFmp9xlrwlZgHxP4Zdvukenk3Cc7gdCLD0vuOn7ObG0dbrFJbwucgSMq XHfCYUm9pyLsJjkq9MTD6t+ojBV0zLrGmYnAsdyYEhvejybXobZ3fqB8SCDwC8hM+S/Y eiidnynCUtj9jxVrBhb8voK3veTIDFDMbeoNhUcQNCj7Fxl4/gZtKSVWCeBQayj/fXuc uN9A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=wYznKRiK5g7CfFmaVdNvA0d2kFj3axg/oPfOo8yHfjI=; b=d+Z6jnKGckaCdi0jGdHdDvPMbO7yGGw70BDiVmdwTRELtpTB2AZ5rnK1r1Q6kastT7 bxV3sr4+erkEWBPvl9nuJF+2fRk8SIFU8Q0zwpYLjM2y8SAFkWbwe4/kAtqscYvNDJWw QsV7ZAWGQv/LSR7te76r0bkRkm6xaw+A5YnLF2vowEN96TJtKa8x9yvTWs7TKeM4oqqI 8256IAW9pQpF91wg+G2sEAOxv7j1B2uftv00vwMQ7g+9ypxWHQZjB22LacYs07ms3biL icF8F1kPAafOKGZekZXTVgtFRLmX6eCaYaXtipP9QPM2eVRiYoR8f2JF0B8ZQiMM1tj8 HVhA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531LnZGTRzJE93T7+H3ZT8dI+kbm2lvsoaa7PKDXR8lp7Hnst/L0 M+SZ3jfybuxfb0mqI1hhiEM3toYfrKj26YtZGzU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx767rJLMA6eTAcCaq9p5AJkD+2oVe3jWOiDHLuHzoCUpNyU5SrSAyKwHIGM9AHUpjcTTRQU4a/hfKE05d8Gb8= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:35d3:: with SMTP id z19mr20435289edc.29.1642677506548; Thu, 20 Jan 2022 03:18:26 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220119230626.31560-1-terry.bowman@amd.com> <20220119230626.31560-2-terry.bowman@amd.com> In-Reply-To: <20220119230626.31560-2-terry.bowman@amd.com> From: Andy Shevchenko Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2022 13:16:44 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/9] kernel/resource: Introduce request_muxed_mem_region() To: Terry Bowman Cc: Guenter Roeck , linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org, Jean Delvare , linux-i2c , Wolfram Sang , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Wim Van Sebroeck , Robert Richter , Tom Lendacky , sudheesh.mavila@amd.com, "Shah, Nehal-bakulchandra" , Basavaraj Natikar , Shyam Sundar S K , Mario Limonciello Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 1:06 AM Terry Bowman wrote: > > Support for requesting muxed memory region is implemented but not > currently callable as a macro. Add the request muxed memory > region macro. > > MMIO memory accesses can be synchronized using request_mem_region() which > is already available. This call will return failure if the resource is > busy. The 'muxed' version of this macro will handle a busy resource by > using a wait queue to retry until the resource is available. ... > @@ -262,6 +262,8 @@ resource_union(struct resource *r1, struct resource *r2, struct resource *r) > #define request_muxed_region(start,n,name) __request_region(&ioport_resource, (start), (n), (name), IORESOURCE_MUXED) > #define __request_mem_region(start,n,name, excl) __request_region(&iomem_resource, (start), (n), (name), excl) > #define request_mem_region(start,n,name) __request_region(&iomem_resource, (start), (n), (name), 0) > +#define request_muxed_mem_region(start, n, name) \ > + __request_region(&iomem_resource, (start), (n), (name), IORESOURCE_MUXED) Looking around tells me that this name is inconsistent, I would expect it to be request_mem_region_muxed() > #define request_mem_region_exclusive(start,n,name) \ > __request_region(&iomem_resource, (start), (n), (name), IORESOURCE_EXCLUSIVE) If you are fine with this, take my Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko