Re: [PR] Use small lock to protect resources related to i2c. [nuttx]

[via GitHub]

wangzhi-art commented on code in PR #15648:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15648#discussion_r1926259849


##########
arch/arm/src/xmc4/xmc4_i2c.c:
##########
@@ -837,8 +844,8 @@ static int i2c_transfer(struct i2c_master_s *dev,
             }
           else
             {
+              spin_unlock_irqrestore(&priv->spinlock, state);

Review Comment:
   
![图片](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/55d4df0f-4c02-4e6b-a73d-e59dfdf1aa1a)
   The comment here indicates that the spin lock is used to achieve the effect 
of disabling interrupts, so the spin lock still needs to be retained. Regarding 
whether mutex can be deleted, I think it is better not to delete it, because 
when the I2C BUS cannot be acquired exclusively, the CPU resources can be 
abandoned and enter the blocking state to give up system resources. This should 
be in line with the previous design logic. If only the spin lock is used, it 
will be busy waiting all the time, which may not be in line with the previous 
logic.



-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscr...@nuttx.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org