From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.zeus03.de (zeus03.de [194.117.254.33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CDC393FBEC6 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2026 10:03:36 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=194.117.254.33 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1782727419; cv=none; b=nByTm1Qms8o1cWeziS4im43AftsKsgsANGRkFo0hcRNX3LufH+BI4qaQbz/AVZaEIA+NT7hdGiIJhq3v0xkqnemq+84qmtQRTAFMoJj4iBQpet38UdybaKNdG2yjPwAkRsIC0UF75Lp/6ZDilVVCReufXEKaCMjrKgnc1IUeevI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1782727419; c=relaxed/simple; bh=S9oewPD5KGae5HcFjUetqQBJ4wpwcMp0LSlhnfH7KCE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=AtnGmJoSy6WGXjrdgFR0p+mDiaxwOjD8lQpiuKCrhlDmC4t7YxLJ3vSuRfnQvQsegxHCTs4K/eZxLqmiUFyENvdzOvduEqOEh8HVT+7FPH4R5hf7S+BS3tBXVxGCJa0gLLDVXh0msVJhStbggOoNnunWmbJjYMj6YF29u+ySE8g= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=sang-engineering.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sang-engineering.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sang-engineering.com header.i=@sang-engineering.com header.b=FRk66QTB; arc=none smtp.client-ip=194.117.254.33 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=sang-engineering.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sang-engineering.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sang-engineering.com header.i=@sang-engineering.com header.b="FRk66QTB" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= sang-engineering.com; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=k1; bh=2B0V N+5r8iusgnu733VSe+8cjXcjm/fgii3cqlMfGjc=; b=FRk66QTBKQJ3JMy+8jYC jw+7NUjyvGeim4e5Q0CcQlYMI56XNcXhuike3AMSgR2dxFRAOqojaGUKheZf3rrb XGgXEcZr2AtBoI+h6gQKpsOQzJdFLL/utT+Hi0Su/zlrKplesHWsrlOrW68wEScX fNvWhl8tl29IdTdzrZov8Pp5OqyjImLMCMJems6rhrwsAcw1W/WIlM9DC/aHLXjS xDJnyT/nH4t8KMYoRVrAOOgOWlNdZnzM2jwCrNZBgVBa0dUxfzXJlE9kn+xQnkM7 PY0xi3fJOgAbET+TIzVPcnHP1nUiP+kpOKucbaYzSd1Hn7sBwlT8gJ8PAwaeqbuq DA== Received: (qmail 329910 invoked from network); 29 Jun 2026 12:03:34 +0200 Received: by mail.zeus03.de with UTF8SMTPSA (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted, authenticated); 29 Jun 2026 12:03:34 +0200 X-UD-Smtp-Session: l3s3148p1@FGRDkmFVsMYujntC Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2026 12:03:34 +0200 From: Wolfram Sang To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andy Shevchenko , Bjorn Andersson , linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, Baolin Wang Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] hwspinlock: add summary in debugfs Message-ID: References: <20260622085204.54248-1-wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: > The hwspinlock_tree_lock is not needed as the > spinlock built into the XArray is sufficient for all these cases. Are you sure about this? In hwspin_lock_request_specific(), the spinlock is taken, then: hwspin_lock_request_specific() -> __hwspin_lock_request() -> pm_runtime_get_sync() -> __pm_runtime_resume() This starts with: might_sleep_if(!(rpmflags & RPM_ASYNC) && !dev->power.irq_safe && dev->power.runtime_status != RPM_ACTIVE); Isn't this a problem?