On 17/05/2024 10:07, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
On 17/05/2024 00:58, Chris Lew wrote:
From: Richard Maina <quic_rmaina@xxxxxxxxxxx>
When a remoteproc crashes or goes down unexpectedly this can result in
a state where locks held by the remoteproc will remain locked possibly
resulting in deadlock. This new API hwspin_lock_bust() allows
hwspinlock implementers to define a bust operation for freeing previously
acquired hwspinlocks after verifying ownership of the acquired lock.
Signed-off-by: Richard Maina <quic_rmaina@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Chris Lew <quic_clew@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Documentation/locking/hwspinlock.rst | 11 +++++++++++
drivers/hwspinlock/hwspinlock_core.c | 30
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
Shouldn't this be added to drivers/hwspinlock/qcom_hwspinlock.c ?
drivers/hwspinlock/hwspinlock_internal.h | 3 +++
include/linux/hwspinlock.h | 6 ++++++
4 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/locking/hwspinlock.rst
b/Documentation/locking/hwspinlock.rst
index c1c2c827b575..6ee94cc6d3b7 100644
--- a/Documentation/locking/hwspinlock.rst
+++ b/Documentation/locking/hwspinlock.rst
@@ -85,6 +85,17 @@ is already free).
Should be called from a process context (might sleep).
+::
+
+ int hwspin_lock_bust(struct hwspinlock *hwlock, unsigned int id);
I don't think this is a geat name "bust" looks alot like "burst" and I
don't think aligns well with the established namespace.
Why not simply qcom_hwspinlock_unlock_force() - which is what you are
doing - forcing the hw spinlock to unlock.
hmm looking again, I think _core is the right place and bust() is
consistent with bust_spinlocks();
meh
---
bod
