On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 1:44 PM, William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.g...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 05:43:07PM -0500, Julia Cartwright wrote: >>The 104-idi-48 gpio driver currently implements an irq_chip for handling >>interrupts; due to how irq_chip handling is done, it's necessary for the >>irq_chip methods to be invoked from hardirq context, even on a a >>real-time kernel. Because the spinlock_t type becomes a "sleeping" >>spinlock w/ RT kernels, it is not suitable to be used with irq_chips. >> >>A quick audit of the operations under the lock reveal that they do only >>minimal, bounded work, and are therefore safe to do under a raw spinlock. >> >>Signed-off-by: Julia Cartwright <ju...@ni.com> > > Hi Julia, > > This driver also uses a second spinlock_t, called ack_lock, to prevent > reentrance into the idi_48_irq_handler function. Should ack_lock also be > implemented as a raw_spinlock_t?
Hm, can I apply this one patch or not? Linus Walleij
