Hi Tali, > So when we encounter a deadlock with this spinlock we decided to get rid of this > unused feature and get both a stable fix for the issue + performance benefits. > We work closely with all our customers so we know that this HW > feature is useless to them. Okay, fair enough. Thanks for the detailed explanation! > > Why do we keep this array if we drop the support? > > > This array represents the HW so we left it as-is. But I agree it can > be shortened to one\two. Would be nice, I think. > OK, we will move the last two to a separate patch. BTW, this change > appears in the title as well. Yes, but I still think it should be a seperate change. > But now I'm not sure: if you already apply for-next patches [1:7], and > we change patch [8:10] > do we need to re-submit [1:7]? Nope, they are already in linux-next. They seemed like good fixes even without the support for the new SoC, so I applied them right away. I hope this was okay. > Thanks, Wolfram, for your review! > Much appreciated You are welcome :) Happy hacking, Wolfram
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
