Hi, Looking at the thread discussion, except architecture discussion around the IRQF_ONESHOT, I think it could go to upstream too. I'll re-upload patch for upstream. Thanks for reviewing. BR, Lionel On 03/30/2017 09:54 AM, Lee Jones wrote: > On Wed, 29 Mar 2017, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > >> On 2017-03-22 09:05:58 [-0700], Steven Rostedt wrote: >>> On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 16:18:43 +0100 >>> Lionel Debieve <lionel.debieve@xxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>> Use raw_spin_lock in enable/disable channel as it comes from >>>> interrupt context. >>>> >>>> BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at >>>> kernel/locking/rtmutex.c:995 >>>> in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 128, pid: 307, name: pulseaudio >>>> Preemption disabled at: >>>> [<c01790fc>] __handle_domain_irq+0x4c/0xec >>>> CPU: 0 PID: 307 Comm: pulseaudio >>>> Hardware name: STi SoC with Flattened Device Tree >>>> [<c011046c>] (unwind_backtrace) >>>> [<c010c7f4>] (show_stack) >>>> [<c03d1578>] (dump_stack) >>>> [<c014e440>] (___might_sleep) >>>> [<c08e7f24>] (rt_spin_lock) >>>> [<c069bb04>] (sti_mbox_disable_channel) >>>> [<c069befc>] (sti_mbox_irq_handler) >>>> [<c0179900>] (__handle_irq_event_percpu) >>>> [<c01799dc>] (handle_irq_event_percpu) >>>> [<c0179a78>] (handle_irq_event) >>>> [<c017d1c8>] (handle_fasteoi_irq) >>>> [<c0178c08>] (generic_handle_irq) >>>> [<c017912c>] (__handle_domain_irq) >>>> [<c0101488>] (gic_handle_irq) >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Lionel Debieve <lionel.debieve@xxxxxx> >>> Looks fine to me. Should this go to mainline? >>> >>> Acked-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> Could this be applied upstream, please? From looking at the thread there >> was no reason not to do so. > Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>>> --- >>>> drivers/mailbox/mailbox-sti.c | 12 ++++++------ >>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/mailbox-sti.c >>>> b/drivers/mailbox/mailbox-sti.c index 41bcd33..f9674ca 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/mailbox/mailbox-sti.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/mailbox/mailbox-sti.c >>>> @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ struct sti_mbox_device { >>>> void __iomem *base; >>>> const char *name; >>>> u32 enabled[STI_MBOX_INST_MAX]; >>>> - spinlock_t lock; >>>> + raw_spinlock_t lock; >>>> }; >>>> >>>> /** >>>> @@ -129,10 +129,10 @@ static void sti_mbox_enable_channel(struct >>>> mbox_chan *chan) unsigned long flags; >>>> void __iomem *base = MBOX_BASE(mdev, instance); >>>> >>>> - spin_lock_irqsave(&mdev->lock, flags); >>>> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&mdev->lock, flags); >>>> mdev->enabled[instance] |= BIT(channel); >>>> writel_relaxed(BIT(channel), base + STI_ENA_SET_OFFSET); >>>> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mdev->lock, flags); >>>> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mdev->lock, flags); >>>> } >>>> >>>> static void sti_mbox_disable_channel(struct mbox_chan *chan) >>>> @@ -144,10 +144,10 @@ static void sti_mbox_disable_channel(struct >>>> mbox_chan *chan) unsigned long flags; >>>> void __iomem *base = MBOX_BASE(mdev, instance); >>>> >>>> - spin_lock_irqsave(&mdev->lock, flags); >>>> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&mdev->lock, flags); >>>> mdev->enabled[instance] &= ~BIT(channel); >>>> writel_relaxed(BIT(channel), base + STI_ENA_CLR_OFFSET); >>>> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mdev->lock, flags); >>>> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mdev->lock, flags); >>>> } >>>> >>>> static void sti_mbox_clear_irq(struct mbox_chan *chan) >>>> @@ -450,7 +450,7 @@ static int sti_mbox_probe(struct platform_device >>>> *pdev) mdev->dev = &pdev->dev; >>>> mdev->mbox = mbox; >>>> >>>> - spin_lock_init(&mdev->lock); >>>> + raw_spin_lock_init(&mdev->lock); >>>> >>>> /* STi Mailbox does not have a Tx-Done or Tx-Ready IRQ */ >>>> mbox->txdone_irq = false; >> Sebastian ��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{�����ǫ���ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f