* Russell King <r...@arm.linux.org.uk> [090803 20:26]: > On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 06:36:12PM +0200, Samuel Ortiz wrote: > > Hi Santosh, > > > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:30:48AM +0530, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: > > > From: Russell King <rmk+ker...@arm.linux.org.uk> > > > > > > (Rebased on 2.6.31-rc4) > > > > > > The TWL4030 IRQ handler has a bug which leads to spinlock lock-up. It is > > > calling the 'unmask' function in a process context. :The mask/unmask/ack > > > functions are only designed to be called from the IRQ handler code, > > > or the proper API interfaces found in linux/interrupt.h. > > > > > > Also there is no need to have IRQ chaining mechanism. The right way to > > > handle this is to claim the parent interrupt as a standard interrupt > > > and arrange for handle_twl4030_pih to take care of the rest of the > > > devices. > > I'd like this one to be split in 2 different patches as you're addressing 2 > > different issues here. > > You'd like me to remove the IRQ handling entirely from this code as one > patch, thereby breaking it, and then add the new IRQ handling as a > separate patch? > > Are you sure? > > I really don't think so, and I suspect you haven't even read the patch. > > It's all _one_ issue, with two explainations of why the current code is > wrong. > > So my reply is: unable to split patch.
Yeah I guess the description "Also there is no need.." above could be just "This is fixed by not using IRQ chaining mechanism" if anything. Anyways would be nice to get this in as a fix. Acked-by: Tony Lindgren <t...@atomide.com> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
