Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [Patch v4 3/6] cpufreq: qcom-cpufreq-hw: Add dcvs interrupt support | From | Thara Gopinath <> | Date | Thu, 29 Jul 2021 07:13:19 -0400 |
| |
On 7/29/21 2:17 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 28-07-21, 18:19, Thara Gopinath wrote: >> Ha! I was too lazy to write this down! So how about I make this a mutex and > > mutex may not work as you come here from irq.
Hi!
So the interrupt handler is a threaded handler. I moved it in v4 since one of the "_opp" api has an underlying mutex and was causing issues. So using a mutex should be pretty safe in this case.
> >> put mod_delayed_work() inside the lock. So it will be something like below >> >> qcom_lmh_dcvs_notify() qcom_cpufreq_hw_lmh_exit() >> >> mutex_lock() mutex_lock() >> if (data->cancel_throttle) { cancel_throttle = true >> mutex_unlock() mutex_unlock() >> return cancel_delayed_work_sync() >> } free_irq() >> enable_irq() / mod_delayed_work() >> mutex_unlock() >> >> I will let you break it! > > I can't any further :) > > Consider merging below to this patch, it fixes sever other minor > issues I see in the code.
IIUC, the main change you are suggesting below is to include enable_irq() / mod_delayed_work() under the spin_lock as well. Is that right ? In which case isn't a mutex better than spinlock?
>
-- Warm Regards Thara (She/Her/Hers)
| |