From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Carpenter Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] staging: omap-thermal: use spin_lock_irqsave inside IRQ handler Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 22:58:37 +0300 Message-ID: <20130318195837.GS9189@mwanda> References: <1363618756-15851-1-git-send-email-eduardo.valentin@ti.com> <1363618756-15851-3-git-send-email-eduardo.valentin@ti.com> <20130318191618.GU9138@mwanda> <51476D3E.6010305@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <51476D3E.6010305@ti.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Eduardo Valentin Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 03:38:38PM -0400, Eduardo Valentin wrote: > On 18-03-2013 15:16, Dan Carpenter wrote: > >On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:59:10AM -0400, Eduardo Valentin wrote: > >>Even if the IRQ is not firing because it is ONE_SHOT and disable > >>at INTC level, the IRQ handler must use spin_lock_irqsave. > >>It is necessary to disable IRQs from the current > >>CPU while it is holding a spin_lock which is need. > >> > > > >Gar... I think I was just totally wrong on this. I think your > >original code was fine. Sorry Eduardo and Greg. > > > >This is a threaded IRQ so the regular spin_lock is fine or even the > >mutex would have been. > > In fact it is. But I rather prefer to use spinlocks there, just to > keep the irq handler sane, even if it is moved to non-threaded IRQ. Yep. I'd agree there. > > > > >IRQ_ONESHOT is about triggering a second IRQ before the first one > >has been finished, btw. > > It is, and that gets done by masking the IRQ at INTC level. > > > > >I am an idiot. > > > Not really. Thanks for your time reviewing the driver. > > I will resend this series. Drop this one and split patch 4/8 into > two I think (one for moving files, one for renaming functions) Great. Much appreciated. regards, dan carpenter