On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 06:36:12PM +0200, Samuel Ortiz wrote: > Hi Santosh, > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:30:48AM +0530, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: > > From: Russell King <rmk+kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > (Rebased on 2.6.31-rc4) > > > > The TWL4030 IRQ handler has a bug which leads to spinlock lock-up. It is > > calling the 'unmask' function in a process context. :The mask/unmask/ack > > functions are only designed to be called from the IRQ handler code, > > or the proper API interfaces found in linux/interrupt.h. > > > > Also there is no need to have IRQ chaining mechanism. The right way to > > handle this is to claim the parent interrupt as a standard interrupt > > and arrange for handle_twl4030_pih to take care of the rest of the devices. > I'd like this one to be split in 2 different patches as you're addressing 2 > different issues here. You'd like me to remove the IRQ handling entirely from this code as one patch, thereby breaking it, and then add the new IRQ handling as a separate patch? Are you sure? I really don't think so, and I suspect you haven't even read the patch. It's all _one_ issue, with two explainations of why the current code is wrong. So my reply is: unable to split patch. -- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
