[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a0aNfF5D+y--5-reBYO2svykCJFxpZ=1dJoK5JDGHPqKw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2021 11:59:28 +0100
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
To: "Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)" <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>
Cc: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
luojiaxing <luojiaxing@...wei.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Santosh Shilimkar <ssantosh@...nel.org>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linuxarm@...neuler.org" <linuxarm@...neuler.org>
Subject: Re: [Linuxarm] Re: [PATCH for next v1 1/2] gpio: omap: Replace
raw_spin_lock_irqsave with raw_spin_lock in omap_gpio_irq_handler()
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 11:42 AM Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)
<song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com> wrote:
>
> Ok, second thought. irqsave before generic_handle_irq() won't defeat
> the purpose of preemption too much as the dispatched irq handlers by
> gpiochip will run in their own threads but not in the thread of
> gpiochip's handler.
>
> so looks like this patch can improve by:
> * move other raw_spin_lock_irqsave to raw_spin_lock;
> * keep the raw_spin_lock_irqsave before generic_handle_irq() to mute
> the warning in genirq.
It seems that the other drivers just call handle_nested_irq() instead
of generic_handle_irq().
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists