Re: [PATCH 2/8] staging: omap-thermal: use spin_lock_irqsave inside IRQ handler
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 03:38:38PM -0400, Eduardo Valentin wrote: > On 18-03-2013 15:16, Dan Carpenter wrote: > >On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:59:10AM -0400, Eduardo Valentin wrote: > >>Even if the IRQ is not firing because it is ONE_SHOT and disable > >>at INTC level, the IRQ handler must use spin_lock_irqsave. > >>It is necessary to disable IRQs from the current > >>CPU while it is holding a spin_lock which is need. > >> > > > >Gar... I think I was just totally wrong on this. I think your > >original code was fine. Sorry Eduardo and Greg. > > > >This is a threaded IRQ so the regular spin_lock is fine or even the > >mutex would have been. > > In fact it is. But I rather prefer to use spinlocks there, just to > keep the irq handler sane, even if it is moved to non-threaded IRQ. Yep. I'd agree there. > > > > >IRQ_ONESHOT is about triggering a second IRQ before the first one > >has been finished, btw. > > It is, and that gets done by masking the IRQ at INTC level. > > > > >I am an idiot. > > > Not really. Thanks for your time reviewing the driver. > > I will resend this series. Drop this one and split patch 4/8 into > two I think (one for moving files, one for renaming functions) Great. Much appreciated. regards, dan carpenter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 2/8] staging: omap-thermal: use spin_lock_irqsave inside IRQ handler
On 18-03-2013 15:16, Dan Carpenter wrote: On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:59:10AM -0400, Eduardo Valentin wrote: Even if the IRQ is not firing because it is ONE_SHOT and disable at INTC level, the IRQ handler must use spin_lock_irqsave. It is necessary to disable IRQs from the current CPU while it is holding a spin_lock which is need. Gar... I think I was just totally wrong on this. I think your original code was fine. Sorry Eduardo and Greg. This is a threaded IRQ so the regular spin_lock is fine or even the mutex would have been. In fact it is. But I rather prefer to use spinlocks there, just to keep the irq handler sane, even if it is moved to non-threaded IRQ. IRQ_ONESHOT is about triggering a second IRQ before the first one has been finished, btw. It is, and that gets done by masking the IRQ at INTC level. I am an idiot. Not really. Thanks for your time reviewing the driver. I will resend this series. Drop this one and split patch 4/8 into two I think (one for moving files, one for renaming functions) regards, dan carpenter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 2/8] staging: omap-thermal: use spin_lock_irqsave inside IRQ handler
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:59:10AM -0400, Eduardo Valentin wrote: > Even if the IRQ is not firing because it is ONE_SHOT and disable > at INTC level, the IRQ handler must use spin_lock_irqsave. > It is necessary to disable IRQs from the current > CPU while it is holding a spin_lock which is need. > Gar... I think I was just totally wrong on this. I think your original code was fine. Sorry Eduardo and Greg. This is a threaded IRQ so the regular spin_lock is fine or even the mutex would have been. IRQ_ONESHOT is about triggering a second IRQ before the first one has been finished, btw. I am an idiot. regards, dan carpenter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[PATCH 2/8] staging: omap-thermal: use spin_lock_irqsave inside IRQ handler
Even if the IRQ is not firing because it is ONE_SHOT and disable
at INTC level, the IRQ handler must use spin_lock_irqsave.
It is necessary to disable IRQs from the current
CPU while it is holding a spin_lock which is need.
Cc: Dan Carpenter
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin
diff --git a/drivers/staging/omap-thermal/omap-bandgap.c
b/drivers/staging/omap-thermal/omap-bandgap.c
index cb7aa35..a4ac06c 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/omap-thermal/omap-bandgap.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/omap-thermal/omap-bandgap.c
@@ -168,9 +168,10 @@ static irqreturn_t omap_bandgap_talert_irq_handler(int
irq, void *data)
struct omap_bandgap *bg_ptr = data;
struct temp_sensor_registers *tsr;
u32 t_hot = 0, t_cold = 0, ctrl;
+ unsigned long flags;
int i;
- spin_lock(_ptr->lock);
+ spin_lock_irqsave(_ptr->lock, flags);
for (i = 0; i < bg_ptr->conf->sensor_count; i++) {
tsr = bg_ptr->conf->sensors[i].registers;
ctrl = omap_bandgap_readl(bg_ptr, tsr->bgap_status);
@@ -209,7 +210,7 @@ static irqreturn_t omap_bandgap_talert_irq_handler(int irq,
void *data)
if (bg_ptr->conf->report_temperature)
bg_ptr->conf->report_temperature(bg_ptr, i);
}
- spin_unlock(_ptr->lock);
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(_ptr->lock, flags);
return IRQ_HANDLED;
}
--
1.7.7.1.488.ge8e1c
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[PATCH 2/8] staging: omap-thermal: use spin_lock_irqsave inside IRQ handler
Even if the IRQ is not firing because it is ONE_SHOT and disable
at INTC level, the IRQ handler must use spin_lock_irqsave.
It is necessary to disable IRQs from the current
CPU while it is holding a spin_lock which is need.
Cc: Dan Carpenter dan.carpen...@oracle.com
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin eduardo.valen...@ti.com
diff --git a/drivers/staging/omap-thermal/omap-bandgap.c
b/drivers/staging/omap-thermal/omap-bandgap.c
index cb7aa35..a4ac06c 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/omap-thermal/omap-bandgap.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/omap-thermal/omap-bandgap.c
@@ -168,9 +168,10 @@ static irqreturn_t omap_bandgap_talert_irq_handler(int
irq, void *data)
struct omap_bandgap *bg_ptr = data;
struct temp_sensor_registers *tsr;
u32 t_hot = 0, t_cold = 0, ctrl;
+ unsigned long flags;
int i;
- spin_lock(bg_ptr-lock);
+ spin_lock_irqsave(bg_ptr-lock, flags);
for (i = 0; i bg_ptr-conf-sensor_count; i++) {
tsr = bg_ptr-conf-sensors[i].registers;
ctrl = omap_bandgap_readl(bg_ptr, tsr-bgap_status);
@@ -209,7 +210,7 @@ static irqreturn_t omap_bandgap_talert_irq_handler(int irq,
void *data)
if (bg_ptr-conf-report_temperature)
bg_ptr-conf-report_temperature(bg_ptr, i);
}
- spin_unlock(bg_ptr-lock);
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(bg_ptr-lock, flags);
return IRQ_HANDLED;
}
--
1.7.7.1.488.ge8e1c
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 2/8] staging: omap-thermal: use spin_lock_irqsave inside IRQ handler
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:59:10AM -0400, Eduardo Valentin wrote: Even if the IRQ is not firing because it is ONE_SHOT and disable at INTC level, the IRQ handler must use spin_lock_irqsave. It is necessary to disable IRQs from the current CPU while it is holding a spin_lock which is need. Gar... I think I was just totally wrong on this. I think your original code was fine. Sorry Eduardo and Greg. This is a threaded IRQ so the regular spin_lock is fine or even the mutex would have been. IRQ_ONESHOT is about triggering a second IRQ before the first one has been finished, btw. I am an idiot. regards, dan carpenter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 2/8] staging: omap-thermal: use spin_lock_irqsave inside IRQ handler
On 18-03-2013 15:16, Dan Carpenter wrote: On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:59:10AM -0400, Eduardo Valentin wrote: Even if the IRQ is not firing because it is ONE_SHOT and disable at INTC level, the IRQ handler must use spin_lock_irqsave. It is necessary to disable IRQs from the current CPU while it is holding a spin_lock which is need. Gar... I think I was just totally wrong on this. I think your original code was fine. Sorry Eduardo and Greg. This is a threaded IRQ so the regular spin_lock is fine or even the mutex would have been. In fact it is. But I rather prefer to use spinlocks there, just to keep the irq handler sane, even if it is moved to non-threaded IRQ. IRQ_ONESHOT is about triggering a second IRQ before the first one has been finished, btw. It is, and that gets done by masking the IRQ at INTC level. I am an idiot. Not really. Thanks for your time reviewing the driver. I will resend this series. Drop this one and split patch 4/8 into two I think (one for moving files, one for renaming functions) regards, dan carpenter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 2/8] staging: omap-thermal: use spin_lock_irqsave inside IRQ handler
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 03:38:38PM -0400, Eduardo Valentin wrote: On 18-03-2013 15:16, Dan Carpenter wrote: On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:59:10AM -0400, Eduardo Valentin wrote: Even if the IRQ is not firing because it is ONE_SHOT and disable at INTC level, the IRQ handler must use spin_lock_irqsave. It is necessary to disable IRQs from the current CPU while it is holding a spin_lock which is need. Gar... I think I was just totally wrong on this. I think your original code was fine. Sorry Eduardo and Greg. This is a threaded IRQ so the regular spin_lock is fine or even the mutex would have been. In fact it is. But I rather prefer to use spinlocks there, just to keep the irq handler sane, even if it is moved to non-threaded IRQ. Yep. I'd agree there. IRQ_ONESHOT is about triggering a second IRQ before the first one has been finished, btw. It is, and that gets done by masking the IRQ at INTC level. I am an idiot. Not really. Thanks for your time reviewing the driver. I will resend this series. Drop this one and split patch 4/8 into two I think (one for moving files, one for renaming functions) Great. Much appreciated. regards, dan carpenter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
