On Tue, 11 Jul 2017, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 7:41 AM, Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> wrote:
> >
> > Ah. Now that makes sense.
> >
> > Unpatched the ordering is:
> >
> > chip_bus_lock(desc);
> > irq_request_resources(desc);
>
> I *looked* at that ordering and then went "Naah, that makes no sense".
>
> But if that's the only issue, how about we just re-order those things
> - we still don't need to move the irq_request_resources() into the
> spinlock, we just move it to below the chip_bus_lock().
>
> IOW, something like the (COMPLETELY UNTEESTED!) attached patch.
>
> This assumes that the chip_bus_lock() thing is still ok for the RT
> case, but it looks like it might be: the only other one I looked at
> (apart from the gpio-omap one) used a mutex.
I looked through all of them and the only special case is gpio-omap.
What I do not understand here is that we have already power management
around all of that.
irq_chip_pm_get(&desc->irq_data);
...
chip_bus_lock(desc);
...
chip_bus_unlock_sync(desc);
...
irq_chip_pm_put(&desc->irq_data);
So why is that not sufficient and needs extra magic in that GPIO driver?
Thanks,
tglx
