[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170315190720.GE682@jcartwri.amer.corp.natinst.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 14:07:20 -0500
From: Julia Cartwright <julia@...com>
To: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/19] mfd: t7l66xb: make use of raw_spinlock variants
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 11:17:44AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Mar 2017, Julia Cartwright wrote:
>
> > The t7l66xb mfd driver currently implements an irq_chip for handling
> > interrupts; due to how irq_chip handling is done, it's necessary for the
> > irq_chip methods to be invoked from hardirq context, even on a a
> > real-time kernel. Because the spinlock_t type becomes a "sleeping"
> > spinlock w/ RT kernels, it is not suitable to be used with irq_chips.
> >
> > A quick audit of the operations under the lock reveal that they do only
> > minimal, bounded work, and are therefore safe to do under a raw spinlock.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Julia Cartwright <julia@...com>
> > ---
> > drivers/mfd/t7l66xb.c | 20 ++++++++++----------
> > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> Can the 3 MFD patches in this set be applied on their own, or is there
> a dependency somewhere else in the set?
All of the patches are completely independent, so may be applied on
their own.
> NB: It's normally a good idea to send the set to everyone, or at the
> very least, the 00/00th patch.
Sorry I neglected to CC. I'll be posting a v2 with the patches that
haven't yet hit next (as of tomorrow, likely), with a revised version of
the coccinelle patch, and will CC you on the coverletter.
Thanks!
Julia
Powered by blists - more mailing lists