From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
To: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@towertech.it>,
"x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@iguana.be>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com>,
Zha Qipeng <qipeng.zha@intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
"dvhart@infradead.org" <dvhart@infradead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy@infradead.org>,
Souvik Kumar Chakravarty <souvik.k.chakravarty@intel.com>,
linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org, linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org>,
Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy Natarajan <sathyaosid@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 3/7] platform/x86: intel_pmc_ipc: Use regmap calls for GCR updates
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 15:37:20 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHp75VeUUbc2AMcuy2X-EduTWMqJSqTkU6nLW=FF8Qu-+OPy2A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5ba5b3d9-b55a-5834-04e5-b4b9a356dca7@linux.intel.com>
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 4:16 AM, sathyanarayanan kuppuswamy
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On 10/01/2017 07:48 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 8:37 AM,
>> <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> Since it sounds as candidate for stable,
>
> Yes.
>>
>> can we have split it to just
>> as less as possible intrusive fix + moving to regmap as a separate
>> change?
>
> If we have to split it into two patches then,
>
> Patch #1 will fix the "sleep in atomic context issue" by replacing
> mutex_lock() with spin_lock()
> in GCR read/write APIs to protect the GCR memory updates.
> Patch #2 will remove GCR read/write/update APIs and replace it with regmap
> APIs. But along with this
> change we will also remove the spin_lock() added in previous patch because
> regmap calls are already
> protected by its own locking mechanism.
>
> Since Patch #2 will clean up what we do in Patch #1, Do we need to split it
> into two patches?
Yes, please do...
>> It should include Fixes: tag as well I suppose.
>
> Agree. I will add Fixes tag in next version.
...because this one will go alone to stable releases.
Be also sure patch #1 will be applied on current vanilla (w/o PDx86
queue involvement).
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-10-04 12:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-09-05 5:37 [RFC v3 0/7] PMC/PUNIT IPC driver cleanup sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy
2017-09-05 5:37 ` [RFC v3 1/7] platform/x86: intel_pmc_ipc: Use devm_* calls in driver probe function sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy
2017-10-01 14:34 ` Andy Shevchenko
2017-10-04 0:55 ` sathyanarayanan kuppuswamy
2017-09-05 5:37 ` [RFC v3 2/7] platform/x86: intel_pmc_ipc: Use MFD framework to create dependent devices sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy
2017-10-01 14:44 ` Andy Shevchenko
2017-10-04 1:00 ` sathyanarayanan kuppuswamy
2017-10-04 12:34 ` Andy Shevchenko
2017-09-05 5:37 ` [RFC v3 3/7] platform/x86: intel_pmc_ipc: Use regmap calls for GCR updates sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy
2017-10-01 14:48 ` Andy Shevchenko
2017-10-04 1:16 ` sathyanarayanan kuppuswamy
2017-10-04 12:37 ` Andy Shevchenko [this message]
2017-09-05 5:37 ` [RFC v3 4/7] platform: x86: Add generic Intel IPC driver sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy
2017-10-01 14:59 ` Andy Shevchenko
2017-10-04 1:07 ` sathyanarayanan kuppuswamy
2017-09-05 5:37 ` [RFC v3 5/7] platform/x86: intel_punit_ipc: Use generic intel ipc device calls sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy
2017-09-05 5:37 ` [RFC v3 6/7] platform/x86: intel_pmc_ipc: Use generic Intel IPC " sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy
2017-09-05 5:37 ` [RFC v3 7/7] platform/x86: intel_scu_ipc: " sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy
2017-09-28 12:55 ` Alexandre Belloni
2017-09-28 13:35 ` Guenter Roeck
2017-10-04 0:55 ` sathyanarayanan kuppuswamy
2017-10-04 0:32 ` sathyanarayanan kuppuswamy
2017-10-01 14:46 ` [RFC v3 0/7] PMC/PUNIT IPC driver cleanup Andy Shevchenko
2017-10-04 1:06 ` sathyanarayanan kuppuswamy
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAHp75VeUUbc2AMcuy2X-EduTWMqJSqTkU6nLW=FF8Qu-+OPy2A@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=andy.shevchenko@gmail.com \
--cc=a.zummo@towertech.it \
--cc=alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com \
--cc=andy@infradead.org \
--cc=dvhart@infradead.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=lee.jones@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=qipeng.zha@intel.com \
--cc=sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com \
--cc=sathyaosid@gmail.com \
--cc=souvik.k.chakravarty@intel.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=wim@iguana.be \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).