From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eduardo Valentin Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] staging: omap-thermal: use spin_lock_irqsave inside IRQ handler Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 15:38:38 -0400 Message-ID: <51476D3E.6010305@ti.com> References: <1363618756-15851-1-git-send-email-eduardo.valentin@ti.com> <1363618756-15851-3-git-send-email-eduardo.valentin@ti.com> <20130318191618.GU9138@mwanda> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130318191618.GU9138@mwanda> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Dan Carpenter 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 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. > > 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) > > regards, > dan carpenter > > >