On 7/29/21 2:17 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 28-07-21, 18:19, Thara Gopinath wrote:
Ha! I was too lazy to write this down! So how about I make this a mutex and
mutex may not work as you come here from irq.
Hi!
So the interrupt handler is a threaded handler. I moved it in v4 since
one of the "_opp" api has an underlying mutex and was causing issues. So
using a mutex should be pretty safe in this case.
put mod_delayed_work() inside the lock. So it will be something like below
qcom_lmh_dcvs_notify() qcom_cpufreq_hw_lmh_exit()
mutex_lock() mutex_lock()
if (data->cancel_throttle) { cancel_throttle = true
mutex_unlock() mutex_unlock()
return cancel_delayed_work_sync()
} free_irq()
enable_irq() / mod_delayed_work()
mutex_unlock()
I will let you break it!
I can't any further :)
Consider merging below to this patch, it fixes sever other minor
issues I see in the code.
IIUC, the main change you are suggesting below is to include
enable_irq() / mod_delayed_work() under the spin_lock as well. Is that
right ? In which case isn't a mutex better than spinlock?
--
Warm Regards
Thara (She/Her/Hers)
