On 2/19/25 23:56, Markus Elfring wrote:

…

quoted

+++ b/drivers/media/platform/synopsys/hdmirx/snps_hdmirx.c

@@ -0,0 +1,2718 @@

…

quoted

+static u32 hdmirx_readl(struct snps_hdmirx_dev *hdmirx_dev, int reg)
+{
+	u32 val;
+
+	guard(spinlock_irqsave)(&hdmirx_dev->rst_lock);
+
+	val = readl(hdmirx_dev->regs + reg);
+
+	return val;
+}

May such a function implementation be simplified?

{
	guard(spinlock_irqsave)(&hdmirx_dev->rst_lock);
	return readl(hdmirx_dev->regs + reg);
}

That will work, thanks.

…

quoted

+static int hdmirx_get_detected_timings(struct snps_hdmirx_dev *hdmirx_dev,
+				       struct v4l2_dv_timings *timings)
+{

…

quoted

+	mutex_lock(&hdmirx_dev->work_lock);
+retry:
+	memset(timings, 0, sizeof(struct v4l2_dv_timings));

…

quoted

+	mutex_unlock(&hdmirx_dev->work_lock);
+
+	return ret;
+}

…

Would you become interested to apply a statement like “guard(mutex)(&hdmirx_dev->work_lock);”?
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.14-rc3/source/include/linux/mutex.h#L201

That will make code less consistent and less intuitive to me. Anyways,
thanks for the suggestion.

-- 
Best regards,
Dmitry