On 11/21/2012 03:57 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 04:34:11PM +0200, Roger Quadros wrote: >> We don't really need a spinlock here, so get rid of it. > > can you prove it ? what if an IRQ happens right after disabling clocks > on ->runtime_suspend() but before it returns ? Will this not cause a > problem for you ? > Which IRQ are you referring to? I don't see any IRQ handler in omap-usb-hot.c In the original code, the spinlock is used only in runtime_suspend/resume and probe functions and it didn't make any sense to me why it was there in the first place. > (note that I have not dug pm_runtime code to make sure this wouldn't > cause a race). > cheers, -roger -- 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
