[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YCZn+idf9A7OpKbb@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2021 13:35:22 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
Cc: "Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)" <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>,
Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
luojiaxing <luojiaxing@...wei.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
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 11:59:28AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> 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().
And IIRC all of them request threaded IRQ explicitly.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists