[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b5c8d134-edcb-4a1a-8940-b26047c9b79d@ibv-augsburg.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 09:58:07 +0200
From: Dominic Rath <dominic.rath@...-augsburg.net>
To: Andrew Davis <afd@...com>, Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
Hari Nagalla <hnagalla@...com>, Nick Saulnier <nsaulnier@...com>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/13] OMAP mailbox FIFO removal
Hello Andrew,
On 10.04.2024 15:59, Andrew Davis wrote:
> Changes for v2:
> - Use threaded irq as suggested by Hari and to
> fix possible "scheduling while atomic" issue
sorry for beeing late, I noticed this already got merged.
I was wondering what the reason was for ending up with the
threaded irq.
In your v1 thread your final conclusion appeared to be
> So for now I just kept this using the regular IRQ context as before.
We looked into this some time ago, and noticed that the IRQ approach
caused problems in the virtio/rpmsg code. I'd like to understand if your
change was for the same reason, or something else we missed before.
Regards,
Dominic
Powered by blists - more mailing lists