On Tue, 9 Oct 2001, Rui Sousa wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Oct 2001, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> From what I see doing locking with a spinlock is quite tricky.
>
> codec->read_mixer = ac97_read_mixer; //can be called holding spinlock
> codec->write_mixer = ac97_write_mixer; //can be called holding spinlock
> codec->recmask_io = ac97_recmask_io;
> codec->mixer_ioctl = ac97_mixer_ioctl; //in general can't be called
> holding spinlock
>
> and ac97_mixer_ioctl() itself calls ac97_read/write_mixer().
>
> A semaphore on the mixer device open function would do just fine If I
> didn't had an interrupt handler also touching the ac97_codec...
Yep, that's how the via audio problem was solved, with a mixer
semaphore. Having your interrupt handler touch ac97_codec definitely
complicates things beyond that simple solution, though. If your only
concern is the intr handler you could create a dont-touch-ac97-in-intr
flag, and set that flag (only) via spin_lock_irq. Then you don't
have to stay inside a spinlock the entire time.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 15 2001 - 21:00:27 EST