[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170711161448.yqrhymmejxtnx7e7@earth>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 18:14:48 +0200
From: Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@...labora.co.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>
Subject: Re: [GIT pull] irq updates for 4.13
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 08:40:10AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 7:41 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> >
> > Ah. Now that makes sense.
> >
> > Unpatched the ordering is:
> >
> > chip_bus_lock(desc);
> > irq_request_resources(desc);
>
> I *looked* at that ordering and then went "Naah, that makes no sense".
>
> But if that's the only issue, how about we just re-order those things
> - we still don't need to move the irq_request_resources() into the
> spinlock, we just move it to below the chip_bus_lock().
>
> IOW, something like the (COMPLETELY UNTEESTED!) attached patch.
That patch on top of 9967468c0a10 fixes boot on Droid 4.
> This assumes that the chip_bus_lock() thing is still ok for the RT
> case, but it looks like it might be: the only other one I looked at
> (apart from the gpio-omap one) used a mutex.
-- Sebastian
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists