Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-12676-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <2330034.ElGaqSPkdT@kreacher>
In-Reply-To: <2330034.ElGaqSPkdT@kreacher>
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2023 14:18:52 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0i=SOyxRF4vV-WZJ-dRD8PZiyFLC7h+trtuhQ_eKLF0jw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] ACPI: OSL/EC: Use spin locks without disabling interrupts
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, 
	Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>, 
	Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>, 
	Michal Wilczynski <michal.wilczynski@intel.com>, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>, 
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>, 
	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>, 
	Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com>, 
	Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>, Daniel Drake <drake@endlessm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 12:34=E2=80=AFPM Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.n=
et> wrote:
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> After
>
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-acpi/patch/5745568.DvuYhMxLoT@=
kreacher/
>
> the SCI interrupt handler is threaded, so ACPICA spin locks can be used w=
ithout
> disabling interrupts, because they cannot be acquired from a hardirq hand=
ler
> running on the same CPU as any code already holding the spin lock.  This =
patch
> [1/3] removes disabling interrupts from acpi_os_acquire_lock() and update=
s
> acpi_os_release_lock() accordingly.
>
> Patch [2/2] uses the observation that if acpi_handle_interrupt() can run
> in a threaded interrupt handler in the GPE case, it can also run in a thr=
eaded
> interrupt handler in the dedicated IRQ case, so it makes the EC driver us=
e a
> threaded handler for the dedicated EC interrupt.
>
> Patch [3/3], in analogy with patch [1/3], uses the observation that after=
 patch
> [2/2] all of the EC code runs in thread context, so it need not disable
> interrupts on the local CPU before acquiring a spin lock, so the EC drive=
r is
> updated to operate its spin lock without disabling interrupts.

I don't see any objections to these patches, so queuing them up for 6.8.

Thanks!