From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marek Vasut Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 19:13:37 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/17] arch/arm/common: Add missing spin_unlock_irqrestore Message-Id: <201005262113.38450.marek.vasut@gmail.com> List-Id: References: <201005261907.06198.marek.vasut@gmail.com> <20100526184358.GC6232@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20100526184358.GC6232@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Dne St 26. kv=C4=9Btna 2010 20:43:58 Russell King - ARM Linux napsal(a): > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 07:07:06PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > > Why are "readl"s protected by spinlock anyway ? Can't we just move the > > locking past the code above ? >=20 > Good question - and there seems to be a deadlock waiting to happen - > sa1111_wake() re-takes the same lock. >=20 > I think we should kill all the spinlock in sa1111_resume(). Russell, Julia, check the patch I posted. Comments are welcome. btw. Russell, killing the spinlock in resume might be overkill. If there wa= s any=20 reason for that being there, it was for the write ops so I'd rather keep th= ose=20 locked. Anyone with actual hardware available should look into that though. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" = in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html