On 14.03.2024 16:31, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Claudiu,
>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 3:11 PM claudiu beznea <claudiu.beznea@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 14.03.2024 15:21, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 12:25 PM Claudiu <claudiu.beznea@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> From: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea.uj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> Lockdep detects a possible deadlock as listed below. This is because it
>>>> detects the IA55 interrupt controller .irq_eoi() API is called from
>>>> interrupt context while configuration-specific API (e.g., .irq_enable())
>>>> could be called from process context on resume path (by calling
>>>> rzg2l_gpio_irq_restore()). To avoid this, protect the call of
>>>> rzg2l_gpio_irq_enable() with spin_lock_irqsave()/spin_unlock_irqrestore().
>>>> With this the same approach that is available in __setup_irq() is mimicked
>>>> to pinctrl IRQ resume function.
>>>
>>> You mean __setup_irq() in kernel/irq/manage.c?
>>
>> Yes!
>>
>>> That one uses the raw spinlock methods?
>>
>> Yes! Would you prefer to have raw spinlock here, too?
>
> Most pin control driver needing protection in an irq_enable
> method use raw spinlock, so I think it makes sense to follow that.
Ok, I'll update it, thanks!
>
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
> Geert
>
