On 2017-03-22 09:05:58 [-0700], Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 16:18:43 +0100
> Lionel Debieve <lionel.debi...@st.com> wrote:
>
> > Use raw_spin_lock in enable/disable channel as it comes from
> > interrupt context.
> >
> > BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
> > kernel/locking/rtmutex.c:995
> > in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 128, pid: 307, name: pulseaudio
> > Preemption disabled at:
> > [<c01790fc>] __handle_domain_irq+0x4c/0xec
> > CPU: 0 PID: 307 Comm: pulseaudio
> > Hardware name: STi SoC with Flattened Device Tree
> > [<c011046c>] (unwind_backtrace)
> > [<c010c7f4>] (show_stack)
> > [<c03d1578>] (dump_stack)
> > [<c014e440>] (___might_sleep)
> > [<c08e7f24>] (rt_spin_lock)
> > [<c069bb04>] (sti_mbox_disable_channel)
> > [<c069befc>] (sti_mbox_irq_handler)
> > [<c0179900>] (__handle_irq_event_percpu)
> > [<c01799dc>] (handle_irq_event_percpu)
> > [<c0179a78>] (handle_irq_event)
> > [<c017d1c8>] (handle_fasteoi_irq)
> > [<c0178c08>] (generic_handle_irq)
> > [<c017912c>] (__handle_domain_irq)
> > [<c0101488>] (gic_handle_irq)
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lionel Debieve <lionel.debi...@st.com>
>
> Looks fine to me. Should this go to mainline?
>
> Acked-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rost...@goodmis.org>
Could this be applied upstream, please? From looking at the thread there
was no reason not to do so.
> -- Steve
>
> > ---
> > drivers/mailbox/mailbox-sti.c | 12 ++++++------
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/mailbox-sti.c
> > b/drivers/mailbox/mailbox-sti.c index 41bcd33..f9674ca 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mailbox/mailbox-sti.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mailbox/mailbox-sti.c
> > @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ struct sti_mbox_device {
> > void __iomem *base;
> > const char *name;
> > u32 enabled[STI_MBOX_INST_MAX];
> > - spinlock_t lock;
> > + raw_spinlock_t lock;
> > };
> >
> > /**
> > @@ -129,10 +129,10 @@ static void sti_mbox_enable_channel(struct
> > mbox_chan *chan) unsigned long flags;
> > void __iomem *base = MBOX_BASE(mdev, instance);
> >
> > - spin_lock_irqsave(&mdev->lock, flags);
> > + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&mdev->lock, flags);
> > mdev->enabled[instance] |= BIT(channel);
> > writel_relaxed(BIT(channel), base + STI_ENA_SET_OFFSET);
> > - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mdev->lock, flags);
> > + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mdev->lock, flags);
> > }
> >
> > static void sti_mbox_disable_channel(struct mbox_chan *chan)
> > @@ -144,10 +144,10 @@ static void sti_mbox_disable_channel(struct
> > mbox_chan *chan) unsigned long flags;
> > void __iomem *base = MBOX_BASE(mdev, instance);
> >
> > - spin_lock_irqsave(&mdev->lock, flags);
> > + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&mdev->lock, flags);
> > mdev->enabled[instance] &= ~BIT(channel);
> > writel_relaxed(BIT(channel), base + STI_ENA_CLR_OFFSET);
> > - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mdev->lock, flags);
> > + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mdev->lock, flags);
> > }
> >
> > static void sti_mbox_clear_irq(struct mbox_chan *chan)
> > @@ -450,7 +450,7 @@ static int sti_mbox_probe(struct platform_device
> > *pdev) mdev->dev = &pdev->dev;
> > mdev->mbox = mbox;
> >
> > - spin_lock_init(&mdev->lock);
> > + raw_spin_lock_init(&mdev->lock);
> >
> > /* STi Mailbox does not have a Tx-Done or Tx-Ready IRQ */
> > mbox->txdone_irq = false;
Sebastian
