On Wed, 2 Oct 2013, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 08:17:04PM +0400, Vyacheslav Tyrtov wrote:
> > +static int exynos_power_up(unsigned int cpu, unsigned int cluster)
> > +{
> > + int ret;
> > + local_irq_disable();
>
> Should there be a local_fiq_disable() here also?
No. In fact this is paired with
> > + arch_spin_lock(&exynos_lock);
to create the equivalent of a arch_spin_lock_irq(). And the reason is:
/*
* We can't use regular spinlocks. In the switcher case, it is possible
* for an outbound CPU to call power_down() after its inbound counterpart
* is already live using the same logical CPU number which trips lockdep
* debugging.
*/
Otherwise we simply would have used spin_lock_irq().
No FIQs are supposed to ever race with this code.
Nicolas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
