Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 29 Jul 2021 16:45:13 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To:     Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@linaro.org>
Cc:     agross@kernel.org, bjorn.andersson@linaro.org, rui.zhang@intel.com,
        daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, robh+dt@kernel.org,
        steev@kali.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Patch v4 3/6] cpufreq: qcom-cpufreq-hw: Add dcvs interrupt
 support
Message-ID: <20210729111513.djd5hrbz6jb453xp@vireshk-i7>
References: <20210727152512.1098329-1-thara.gopinath@linaro.org>
 <20210727152512.1098329-4-thara.gopinath@linaro.org>
 <20210728035014.25mgvrpnraxfslq7@vireshk-i7>
 <9a257605-d282-cd06-cc44-5ad5a5f8484d@linaro.org>
 <20210729061713.kzhka7nymo53zw2o@vireshk-i7>
 <4d80594c-9088-5d36-44cd-19a98145095c@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4d80594c-9088-5d36-44cd-19a98145095c@linaro.org>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716-391-311a52
Precedence: bulk

On 29-07-21, 07:13, Thara Gopinath wrote:
> So the interrupt handler is a threaded handler. I moved it in v4 since one
> of the "_opp" api has an underlying mutex and was causing issues. So using a
> mutex should be pretty safe in this case.

Ahh I see.

> IIUC, the main change you are suggesting below is to include enable_irq() /
> mod_delayed_work() under the spin_lock as well. Is that right ? In which
> case isn't a mutex better than spinlock?

Yeah, sure.

-- 
viresh