Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org 3921A605A0
Date:   Wed, 24 Jul 2019 13:36:30 -0600
From:   Lina Iyer <ilina@codeaurora.org>
To:     Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>
Cc:     agross@kernel.org, bjorn.andersson@linaro.org,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-soc@vger.kernel.org,
        rnayak@codeaurora.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, dianders@chromium.org,
        mkshah@codeaurora.org, "Raju P.L.S.S.S.N" <rplsssn@codeaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/4] drivers: qcom: rpmh-rsc: simplify TCS locking
Message-ID: <20190724193630.GD18620@codeaurora.org>
References: <20190722215340.3071-1-ilina@codeaurora.org>
 <5d375054.1c69fb81.7ce3f.3591@mx.google.com>
 <20190723192159.GA18620@codeaurora.org>
 <5d376bb3.1c69fb81.2bb4e.7771@mx.google.com>
 <20190724145452.GC18620@codeaurora.org>
 <5d38a430.1c69fb81.6e696.9e6f@mx.google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5d38a430.1c69fb81.6e696.9e6f@mx.google.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jul 24 2019 at 12:32 -0600, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>Quoting Lina Iyer (2019-07-24 07:54:52)
>> On Tue, Jul 23 2019 at 14:19 -0600, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> >Quoting Lina Iyer (2019-07-23 12:21:59)
>> >> On Tue, Jul 23 2019 at 12:22 -0600, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> >> >Can you keep irq saving and restoring in this patch and then remove that
>> >> >in the next patch with reasoning? It probably isn't safe if the lock is
>> >> >taken in interrupt context anyway.
>> >> >
>> >> Yes, the drv->lock should have been irqsave/irqrestore, but it hasn't
>> >> been changed by this patch.
>> >
>> >It needs to be changed to maintain the irqsaving/restoring of the code.
>> >
>> May be I should club this with the following patch. Instead of adding
>> irqsave and restore to drv->lock and then remvoing them again in the
>> following patch.
>>
>
>I suspect that gets us back to v1 of this patch series? I'd prefer you
>just keep the save/restore of irqs in this patch and then remove them
>later. Or if the order can be the other way, where we remove grabbing
>the lock in irq context comes first and then consolidate the locks into
>one it might work.
>
Patches 1 and 3 need not be bundled. We can keep them separate to help
understand the change better.
This patch order - #2, #1, #3, #4 would work.

--Lina