[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51476D3E.6010305@ti.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 15:38:38 -0400
From: Eduardo Valentin <eduardo.valentin@...com>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
CC: <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
<linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] staging: omap-thermal: use spin_lock_irqsave inside
IRQ handler
On 18-03-2013 15:16, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:59:10AM -0400, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
>> Even if the IRQ is not firing because it is ONE_SHOT and disable
>> at INTC level, the IRQ handler must use spin_lock_irqsave.
>> It is necessary to disable IRQs from the current
>> CPU while it is holding a spin_lock which is need.
>>
>
> Gar... I think I was just totally wrong on this. I think your
> original code was fine. Sorry Eduardo and Greg.
>
> This is a threaded IRQ so the regular spin_lock is fine or even the
> mutex would have been.
In fact it is. But I rather prefer to use spinlocks there, just to keep
the irq handler sane, even if it is moved to non-threaded IRQ.
>
> IRQ_ONESHOT is about triggering a second IRQ before the first one
> has been finished, btw.
It is, and that gets done by masking the IRQ at INTC level.
>
> I am an idiot.
Not really. Thanks for your time reviewing the driver.
I will resend this series. Drop this one and split patch 4/8 into two
I think (one for moving files, one for renaming functions)
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists