Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1601307 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH 14/19] mfd: t7l66xb: make use of raw_spinlock variants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH 14/19] mfd: t7l66xb: make use of raw_spinlock variants Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2017-03-15 12:30 +0100
    Re: [PATCH 14/19] mfd: t7l66xb: make use of raw_spinlock variants Julia Cartwright <julia@ni.com> - 2017-03-15 20:10 +0100
      Re: [PATCH 14/19] mfd: t7l66xb: make use of raw_spinlock variants Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2017-03-16 10:30 +0100

#1601307 — Re: [PATCH 14/19] mfd: t7l66xb: make use of raw_spinlock variants

On Thu, 09 Mar 2017, Julia Cartwright wrote:

> The t7l66xb mfd driver currently implements an irq_chip for handling
> interrupts; due to how irq_chip handling is done, it's necessary for the
> irq_chip methods to be invoked from hardirq context, even on a a
> real-time kernel.  Because the spinlock_t type becomes a "sleeping"
> spinlock w/ RT kernels, it is not suitable to be used with irq_chips.
> 
> A quick audit of the operations under the lock reveal that they do only
> minimal, bounded work, and are therefore safe to do under a raw spinlock.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Julia Cartwright <julia@ni.com>
> ---
>  drivers/mfd/t7l66xb.c | 20 ++++++++++----------
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

Can the 3 MFD patches in this set be applied on their own, or is there
a dependency somewhere else in the set?

NB: It's normally a good idea to send the set to everyone, or at the
very least, the 00/00th patch.

> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/t7l66xb.c b/drivers/mfd/t7l66xb.c
> index 94bd89cb1f06..22c811396edc 100644
> --- a/drivers/mfd/t7l66xb.c
> +++ b/drivers/mfd/t7l66xb.c
> @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ static const struct resource t7l66xb_mmc_resources[] = {
>  struct t7l66xb {
>  	void __iomem		*scr;
>  	/* Lock to protect registers requiring read/modify/write ops. */
> -	spinlock_t		lock;
> +	raw_spinlock_t		lock;
>  
>  	struct resource		rscr;
>  	struct clk		*clk48m;
> @@ -89,13 +89,13 @@ static int t7l66xb_mmc_enable(struct platform_device *mmc)
>  
>  	clk_prepare_enable(t7l66xb->clk32k);
>  
> -	spin_lock_irqsave(&t7l66xb->lock, flags);
> +	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&t7l66xb->lock, flags);
>  
>  	dev_ctl = tmio_ioread8(t7l66xb->scr + SCR_DEV_CTL);
>  	dev_ctl |= SCR_DEV_CTL_MMC;
>  	tmio_iowrite8(dev_ctl, t7l66xb->scr + SCR_DEV_CTL);
>  
> -	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&t7l66xb->lock, flags);
> +	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&t7l66xb->lock, flags);
>  
>  	tmio_core_mmc_enable(t7l66xb->scr + 0x200, 0,
>  		t7l66xb_mmc_resources[0].start & 0xfffe);
> @@ -110,13 +110,13 @@ static int t7l66xb_mmc_disable(struct platform_device *mmc)
>  	unsigned long flags;
>  	u8 dev_ctl;
>  
> -	spin_lock_irqsave(&t7l66xb->lock, flags);
> +	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&t7l66xb->lock, flags);
>  
>  	dev_ctl = tmio_ioread8(t7l66xb->scr + SCR_DEV_CTL);
>  	dev_ctl &= ~SCR_DEV_CTL_MMC;
>  	tmio_iowrite8(dev_ctl, t7l66xb->scr + SCR_DEV_CTL);
>  
> -	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&t7l66xb->lock, flags);
> +	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&t7l66xb->lock, flags);
>  
>  	clk_disable_unprepare(t7l66xb->clk32k);
>  
> @@ -206,11 +206,11 @@ static void t7l66xb_irq_mask(struct irq_data *data)
>  	unsigned long			flags;
>  	u8 imr;
>  
> -	spin_lock_irqsave(&t7l66xb->lock, flags);
> +	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&t7l66xb->lock, flags);
>  	imr = tmio_ioread8(t7l66xb->scr + SCR_IMR);
>  	imr |= 1 << (data->irq - t7l66xb->irq_base);
>  	tmio_iowrite8(imr, t7l66xb->scr + SCR_IMR);
> -	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&t7l66xb->lock, flags);
> +	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&t7l66xb->lock, flags);
>  }
>  
>  static void t7l66xb_irq_unmask(struct irq_data *data)
> @@ -219,11 +219,11 @@ static void t7l66xb_irq_unmask(struct irq_data *data)
>  	unsigned long flags;
>  	u8 imr;
>  
> -	spin_lock_irqsave(&t7l66xb->lock, flags);
> +	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&t7l66xb->lock, flags);
>  	imr = tmio_ioread8(t7l66xb->scr + SCR_IMR);
>  	imr &= ~(1 << (data->irq - t7l66xb->irq_base));
>  	tmio_iowrite8(imr, t7l66xb->scr + SCR_IMR);
> -	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&t7l66xb->lock, flags);
> +	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&t7l66xb->lock, flags);
>  }
>  
>  static struct irq_chip t7l66xb_chip = {
> @@ -321,7 +321,7 @@ static int t7l66xb_probe(struct platform_device *dev)
>  	if (!t7l66xb)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  
> -	spin_lock_init(&t7l66xb->lock);
> +	raw_spin_lock_init(&t7l66xb->lock);
>  
>  	platform_set_drvdata(dev, t7l66xb);
>  

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1601665

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 11:17:44AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Mar 2017, Julia Cartwright wrote:
> 
> > The t7l66xb mfd driver currently implements an irq_chip for handling
> > interrupts; due to how irq_chip handling is done, it's necessary for the
> > irq_chip methods to be invoked from hardirq context, even on a a
> > real-time kernel.  Because the spinlock_t type becomes a "sleeping"
> > spinlock w/ RT kernels, it is not suitable to be used with irq_chips.
> > 
> > A quick audit of the operations under the lock reveal that they do only
> > minimal, bounded work, and are therefore safe to do under a raw spinlock.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Julia Cartwright <julia@ni.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/mfd/t7l66xb.c | 20 ++++++++++----------
> >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> 
> Can the 3 MFD patches in this set be applied on their own, or is there
> a dependency somewhere else in the set?

All of the patches are completely independent, so may be applied on
their own.

> NB: It's normally a good idea to send the set to everyone, or at the
> very least, the 00/00th patch.

Sorry I neglected to CC.  I'll be posting a v2 with the patches that
haven't yet hit next (as of tomorrow, likely), with a revised version of
the coccinelle patch, and will CC you on the coverletter.

Thanks!
   Julia

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1602129

On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Julia Cartwright wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 11:17:44AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, 09 Mar 2017, Julia Cartwright wrote:
> > 
> > > The t7l66xb mfd driver currently implements an irq_chip for handling
> > > interrupts; due to how irq_chip handling is done, it's necessary for the
> > > irq_chip methods to be invoked from hardirq context, even on a a
> > > real-time kernel.  Because the spinlock_t type becomes a "sleeping"
> > > spinlock w/ RT kernels, it is not suitable to be used with irq_chips.
> > > 
> > > A quick audit of the operations under the lock reveal that they do only
> > > minimal, bounded work, and are therefore safe to do under a raw spinlock.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Julia Cartwright <julia@ni.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/mfd/t7l66xb.c | 20 ++++++++++----------
> > >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > 
> > Can the 3 MFD patches in this set be applied on their own, or is there
> > a dependency somewhere else in the set?
> 
> All of the patches are completely independent, so may be applied on
> their own.
> 
> > NB: It's normally a good idea to send the set to everyone, or at the
> > very least, the 00/00th patch.
> 
> Sorry I neglected to CC.  I'll be posting a v2 with the patches that
> haven't yet hit next (as of tomorrow, likely), with a revised version of
> the coccinelle patch, and will CC you on the coverletter.

To save a clash of me applying and you submitting v2 I'll not apply
the MFD patches just yet.  But if I have caught you in time, please
apply the following tag to them:

For my own reference:
  Acked-for-MFD-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web