On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 09:47:29AM +0900, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 04:51:32PM +0000, Charles Keepax wrote: > > > + snd_soc_dapm_force_enable_pin_locked(&codec->dapm, "CP2"); > > + snd_soc_dapm_force_enable_pin_locked(&codec->dapm, "SYSCLK"); > > + > > + mutex_unlock(&codec->dapm.card->dapm_mutex); > > + > > snd_soc_dapm_sync(&codec->dapm); > > With all these patches it seems weird that we have to drop the lock to > do the sync which will immediately retake it. It's not broken but it > looks off - it would be better to have a version of _sync() that we can > call within the lock.
No problem to add a version of sync that can be called from within the lock, should help out with Dimtry's comments as well. > > Regarding the naming issue that Lars mentioned I think the current > operations are probably fine but calling them _unlocked() meaning they > don't do any locking (as distinct from the existing _locked() which take > locks) might be OK. Yeah that would be good, since my original aim here was to avoid updating every single usage of these functions. Thanks, Charles -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
