Hi Arnd,

On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 15:03:02 +0100
"Arnd Bergmann" [off-list ref] wrote:

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023, at 15:08, Herve Codina wrote:

quoted

@@ -272,6 +274,8 @@ int qmc_chan_get_info(struct qmc_chan *chan, struct 

qmc_chan_info *info)
 	if (ret)
 		return ret;

+	spin_lock_irqsave(&chan->ts_lock, flags);
+
 	info->mode = chan->mode;
 	info->rx_fs_rate = tsa_info.rx_fs_rate;
 	info->rx_bit_rate = tsa_info.rx_bit_rate;

@@ -280,6 +284,8 @@ int qmc_chan_get_info(struct qmc_chan *chan, struct 

qmc_chan_info *info)
 	info->tx_bit_rate = tsa_info.tx_bit_rate;
 	info->nb_rx_ts = hweight64(chan->rx_ts_mask);

+	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&chan->ts_lock, flags);
+
 	return 0;
 }  

I would normally use spin_lock_irq() instead of spin_lock_irqsave()
in functions that are only called outside of atomic context.

I would prefer to keep spin_lock_irqsave() here.
This function is part of the API and so, its quite difficult to ensure
that all calls (current and future) will be done outside of an atomic
context.

quoted

+static int qmc_chan_start_rx(struct qmc_chan *chan);
+
 int qmc_chan_stop(struct qmc_chan *chan, int direction)
 {  

... 

quoted

-static void qmc_chan_start_rx(struct qmc_chan *chan)
+static int qmc_setup_chan_trnsync(struct qmc *qmc, struct qmc_chan *chan);
+
+static int qmc_chan_start_rx(struct qmc_chan *chan)
 {  

Can you reorder the static functions in a way that avoids the
forward declarations?

Yes, sure.
I will do that in the next iteration.

Thanks for the review,

Best regards,
Hervé