On Wed, Jul 24 2019 at 12:32 -0600, Stephen Boyd wrote:
Quoting Lina Iyer (2019-07-24 07:54:52)
On Tue, Jul 23 2019 at 14:19 -0600, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>Quoting Lina Iyer (2019-07-23 12:21:59)
>> On Tue, Jul 23 2019 at 12:22 -0600, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> >Can you keep irq saving and restoring in this patch and then remove that
>> >in the next patch with reasoning? It probably isn't safe if the lock is
>> >taken in interrupt context anyway.
>> >
>> Yes, the drv->lock should have been irqsave/irqrestore, but it hasn't
>> been changed by this patch.
>
>It needs to be changed to maintain the irqsaving/restoring of the code.
>
May be I should club this with the following patch. Instead of adding
irqsave and restore to drv->lock and then remvoing them again in the
following patch.
I suspect that gets us back to v1 of this patch series? I'd prefer you
just keep the save/restore of irqs in this patch and then remove them
later. Or if the order can be the other way, where we remove grabbing
the lock in irq context comes first and then consolidate the locks into
one it might work.
Patches 1 and 3 need not be bundled. We can keep them separate to help
understand the change better.
This patch order - #2, #1, #3, #4 would work.
--Lina
