On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 12:34 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlow...@canonical.com> wrote: > On 05/03/2021 17:29, Hector Martin wrote: > > On 06/03/2021 01.20, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > >>> I am just splitting an > >>> existing function into two, where one takes the lock and the other does > >>> the work. Do you mean using a different locking function? I'm not > >>> entirely sure what you're suggesting. > >> > >> Yes, as a prerequisite > >> > >> spin_lock_irqsave -> spin_lock(). > > > > Krzysztof, is this something you want in this series? I was trying to > > avoid logic changes to the non-Apple paths. > > I don't quite get the need for such change (the code will be still > called in interrupt handler, right?), but assuming the "why?" is > properly documented, it can be a separate patch here.
This is only for readability: the common rule is to not disable interrupts when they are already disabled, so a reader might wonder if this instance of the handler is special in some case that it might be called with interrupts enabled. There is also a small overhead in accessing the global irq mask register on some architectures, but for a uart that does not make any difference of course. While I'm generally in favor of that kind of cleanup, I'd also prefer to leave it out of this series -- once you get into details like this the series gets harder to review. Arnd