> >Would it not be lighter to use atomic bit ops ?
>
> Do you mean in order to remove rx_mutex?
>
> mutex_lock(&info->rx_mutex);
> atomic_set(info->irq_state ,1);
> mutex_unlock(&info->rx_mutex);
>
> looks a bit strange. I still need the rx_mutex to protect irq_state while
> reading i2c.
>
> mutex_lock(&info->rx_mutex);
> ret = i2c_master_recv(client, info->buf, info->buflen);
> info->irq_state = 0;
> mutex_unlock(&info->rx_mutex);
>
I was thinking clear_bit/test_and_set_bit rather than atomic_t operations.
ie in the IRQ
clear_bit(0, &info->irq_state);
in the main path
if (test_and_set_bit(0, &info->state))
i2c_master_recv(...)
but if the mutex is needed anyway it doesn't help make the code saner.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
