Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 24 Jul 2019 13:36:30 -0600 | From | Lina Iyer <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH V2 1/4] drivers: qcom: rpmh-rsc: simplify TCS locking |
| |
On Wed, Jul 24 2019 at 12:32 -0600, Stephen Boyd wrote: >Quoting Lina Iyer (2019-07-24 07:54:52) >> On Tue, Jul 23 2019 at 14:19 -0600, Stephen Boyd wrote: >> >Quoting Lina Iyer (2019-07-23 12:21:59) >> >> On Tue, Jul 23 2019 at 12:22 -0600, Stephen Boyd wrote: >> >> >Can you keep irq saving and restoring in this patch and then remove that >> >> >in the next patch with reasoning? It probably isn't safe if the lock is >> >> >taken in interrupt context anyway. >> >> > >> >> Yes, the drv->lock should have been irqsave/irqrestore, but it hasn't >> >> been changed by this patch. >> > >> >It needs to be changed to maintain the irqsaving/restoring of the code. >> > >> May be I should club this with the following patch. Instead of adding >> irqsave and restore to drv->lock and then remvoing them again in the >> following patch. >> > >I suspect that gets us back to v1 of this patch series? I'd prefer you >just keep the save/restore of irqs in this patch and then remove them >later. Or if the order can be the other way, where we remove grabbing >the lock in irq context comes first and then consolidate the locks into >one it might work. > Patches 1 and 3 need not be bundled. We can keep them separate to help understand the change better. This patch order - #2, #1, #3, #4 would work.
--Lina
| |