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. Best regards, Krzysztof
