On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:48:57PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Johan Hovold <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Drop redundant lock-as-irq in gpio_setup_irq, which has already been > > handled when requesting and releasing the irq (i.e. in the irq chip > > irq_request_resources and irq_release_resources callbacks). > > Well we would hope they all do that. And I hope for the vast majority > that is true, but there is a TODO to go over all gpiochip drivers > (some which are elsewhere in the kernel than drivers/gpio) and > make sure they actually do so. > > Right now it's a bit arbitrary if so happens, and in not marked by > the driver as IRQ then this kicks in and provides an additional > protection. > > But maybe that's overzealous, what do people say?
No, you're right. The drivers that fail to do this needs to be fixed, but the "redundant" lock-as-irq in the sysfs interface should not be removed before that. I'll respin the series and add it back with a comment explaining why gpiochip_lock_as_irq is currently called twice. Thanks, Johan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
