On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:42:28AM +0100, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
On 11/10/17 05:38, Vinod Koul wrote:
On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 05:51:31PM +0200, srinivas.kandagatla@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:If we remove the locking, It will be issue if we have multiple devices in a
mutex_init(&ctrl->m_ctrl);
+ spin_lock_init(&ctrl->tx.lock);
+ spin_lock_init(&ctrl->rx.lock);
locks galore :) My assumption is that you want to optimize these? But given
that audio user is going to be serialized do we practically need two locks?
component, which is common atleast with the codec which am looking at.
can you explian what you mean by a "device" here?
+ switch (mc) {
+ case SLIM_MSG_MC_REQUEST_VALUE:
+ case SLIM_MSG_MC_REQUEST_INFORMATION:
what does MC refer to?
Message Code.
isnt SLIM_MSG enough :D I think we cna get rid of MC here..
With REQUEST_CHANGE_VALUE single command we can read old value at the same+struct slim_val_inf {
+ u16 start_offset;
+ u8 num_bytes;
+ u8 *rbuf;
+ const u8 *wbuf;
can we do read and write, if not it can be a buf which maybe rbuf or wbug
based on type
time we can write new value.
so that is a read modify write, correct? Is that implemented in HW, if so we
need to provide only write value