<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:47C40548.4080608@ru.mvista.com" type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
+static inline void emac_rx_clk_default(struct emac_instance *dev)
+{
+ if (emac_has_feature(dev, EMAC_FTR_440EP_PHY_CLK_FIX)) {
+ unsigned long flags;
+
+ local_irq_save(flags);
+ mtdcri(SDR0, SDR0_MFR, mfdcri(SDR0, SDR0_MFR) &
+ ~(SDR0_MFR_ECS >> dev->cell_index));
+ local_irq_restore(flags);
+ }
+}
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Why did you do local_irq_save in these two functions? mtdcri already
does spin_lock_irqsave...
josh
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Oops, this got copy-pasted from the older ibm_emac.
Thanks,
Valentine.
_______________________________________________</pre>
</blockquote>
<tt>When I saw Josh's question, I thought the irq save/restore was
there to make the read-modify-write atomic; i.e. read SDR0_MFR, "AND"
out some bits, then write it back without the possibility of anything
else touching </tt><tt>SDR0_MFR. I'm just starting to get familiar
with the kernel, so if you have a chance, please help educate me. Does
the irq lock in mtdcri protect the read-modify-write? Or maybe this
R-M-W doesn't need protecting?<br>
<br>
Steve<br>
<br>
</tt>
</body>
</html>