hi Jerome:
Thanks for your advice, I will modify the commit message and squash
the patch before sending it.
On 2024/9/24 16:35, Jerome Brunet wrote:
> [ EXTERNAL EMAIL ]
>
> On Fri 20 Sep 2024 at 16:16, Chuan Liu via B4 Relay <devnull+chuan.liu.amlogic.com@kernel.org> wrote:
>
>> The existing locking mechanism of CCF can effectively avoid concurrent
>> register access. struct meson_clk_mpll_data has no meaning in defining
>> a spinlock repeatedly.
>>
>> In addition, the register corresponding to MPLL does not share the same
>> register with other module drivers, so there is no concurrent access to
>> the register with other modules drivers.
>>
>> Every driver file with mpll defines a spinlock with the same name (even
>> if defined as "static"), giving the illusion of repeated definitions?
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chuan Liu <chuan.liu@amlogic.com>
> I'm ok with the patch in general but I have problem with the wording.
> The lock is not meaningless. It has a meaning but it does not serve a
> purpose, at least not anymore. You could write that it is useless, or
> superfluous if you want to, but not meaningless.
>
> Also, please squash the changes. 1 patch for this is fine.
>
>> ---
>> Chuan Liu (6):
>> clk: meson: mpll: Delete a meaningless spinlock from the MPLL
>> clk: meson: axg: Delete the spinlock from the MPLL
>> clk: meson: meson8b: Delete the spinlock from the MPLL
>> clk: meson: gxbb: Delete the spinlock from the MPLL
>> clk: meson: g12a: Delete the spinlock from the MPLL
>> clk: meson: s4: Delete the spinlock from the MPLL
>>
>> drivers/clk/meson/axg.c | 6 ------
>> drivers/clk/meson/clk-mpll.c | 11 -----------
>> drivers/clk/meson/clk-mpll.h | 1 -
>> drivers/clk/meson/g12a.c | 6 ------
>> drivers/clk/meson/gxbb.c | 6 ------
>> drivers/clk/meson/meson8b.c | 3 ---
>> drivers/clk/meson/s4-pll.c | 6 ------
>> 7 files changed, 39 deletions(-)
>> ---
>> base-commit: 0ef513560b53d499c824b77220c537eafe1df90d
>> change-id: 20240918-mpll_spinlock-4b9b55c44fd5
>>
>> Best regards,
> --
> Jerome