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