Re: [PATCH -next] apply: use DEFINE_SPINLOCK() instead of spin_lock_init().

[Daniel Vetter]

On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 07:17:13PM -0800, Yu Jiahua wrote:
> From: Jiahua Yu <yujiahua1@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> spinlock can be initialized automatically with DEFINE_SPINLOCK()
> rather than explicitly calling spin_lock_init().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jiahua Yu <yujiahua1@xxxxxxxxxx>

Stuffed into drm-misc-next. The subject looked a bit strange, so I fixed
that up.
-Daniel

> ---
>  drivers/video/fbdev/omap2/omapfb/dss/apply.c | 4 +---
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/video/fbdev/omap2/omapfb/dss/apply.c b/drivers/video/fbdev/omap2/omapfb/dss/apply.c
> index c71021091828..acca991c7540 100644
> --- a/drivers/video/fbdev/omap2/omapfb/dss/apply.c
> +++ b/drivers/video/fbdev/omap2/omapfb/dss/apply.c
> @@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ static struct {
>  } dss_data;
>  
>  /* protects dss_data */
> -static spinlock_t data_lock;
> +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(data_lock);
>  /* lock for blocking functions */
>  static DEFINE_MUTEX(apply_lock);
>  static DECLARE_COMPLETION(extra_updated_completion);
> @@ -131,8 +131,6 @@ static void apply_init_priv(void)
>  	struct mgr_priv_data *mp;
>  	int i;
>  
> -	spin_lock_init(&data_lock);
> -
>  	for (i = 0; i < num_ovls; ++i) {
>  		struct ovl_priv_data *op;
>  
> -- 
> 2.17.1
> 

-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch