On 18 June 2012 18:41, Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 18:37 +0530, Jassi Brar wrote: >> On 18 June 2012 17:54, Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@xxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 17:16 +0530, Jassi Brar wrote: >> >> >> So preferably I would move request_threaded_irq() to after >> >> hdmi_check_hpd_state() in ti_hdmi_4xxx_phy_enable() and convert the >> > >> > No, you can't move the check. If you move it, the HPD state could change >> > between the check and the request_irq, and we'd miss it. >> > >> Wouldn't we then get an irq, and hence another hdmi_check_hpd_state(), for that? > > No, if we haven't requested the irq yet. So what could happen: > > - initially the cable is unplugged > - ti_hdmi_4xxx_phy_enable() calls hdmi_check_hpd_state(), nothing is > done as cable is unplugged > - cable plugged in > - ti_hdmi_4xxx_phy_enable() calls request_irq. No irq raised, as the > cable's state doesn't change. > > We wouldn't know that cable is actually plugged in at that point. > I see, you mean physically (un)plugging the cable could race with phy_enable. OK, I'll revise the changelog for this patch and submit another patch converting the spinlock to mutex. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fbdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
