Re: [PATCH v3 1/9] kernel/resource: Introduce request_muxed_mem_region()

[Terry Bowman]

On 1/20/22 5:16 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 1:06 AM Terry Bowman <terry.bowman@xxxxxxx> 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 <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
                                                                      
I'm fine with the rename. I'll update as you requested in the next series
revision and add your "reviewed-by" to this patch.

Regards,
Terry