Hi,

On Friday 28 June 2013 03:41 PM, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:

On 06/28/2013 10:17 AM, Hui Wang wrote:

quoted

On 06/26/2013 11:02 PM, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:

quoted

Add a PHY provider driver for the Samsung S5P/Exynos SoC MIPI CSI-2
receiver and MIPI DSI transmitter DPHYs.

Signed-off-by: Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@samsung.com>
---
Changes since v2:
   - adapted to the generic PHY API v9: use phy_set/get_drvdata(),
   - fixed of_xlate callback to return ERR_PTR() instead of NULL,
   - namespace cleanup, put "GPL v2" as MODULE_LICENSE, removed pr_debug,
   - removed phy id check in __set_phy_state().
---

[...]

quoted

+
+	if (IS_EXYNOS_MIPI_DSIM_PHY_ID(id))
+		reset = EXYNOS_MIPI_PHY_MRESETN;
+	else
+		reset = EXYNOS_MIPI_PHY_SRESETN;
+
+	spin_lock_irqsave(&state->slock, flags);

Sorry for one stupid question here, why do you use spin_lock_irqsave()
rather than spin_lock(),
I don't see the irq handler will use this spinlock anywhere in this c file.

Yes, there is no chance the PHY users could call the phy ops from within
an interrupt context. Especially now when there is a per phy object
mutex used in the PHY operation helpers. So I'll replace it with plain
spin_lock/unlock. Thank you for the review.

Now that PHY ops is already protected, do you really need a spin_lock here?

Thanks
Kishon