On 7/25/07, Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2007-07-25 at 13:42 -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > > On 7/25/07, Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The port lock needs to be dropped across the tty_flip_buffer call, as it > > > would lead to a deadlock with the spin_lock(&port->lock) in uart_start() > > > > > > Uncovered by lockdep / preempt-rt > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Instead of dropping the lock and reclaiming it, would it be better for > > me to rework the driver to only grab the lock in the 'meat' of > > mpc52xx_uart_int_rx_chars() and mpc52xx_uart_int_tx_chars()? (As > > opposed to holding the lock for the entirety of mpc52xx_uart_int()) > > No, it's not worth the trouble. You need to protect the hardware access. > > > What convention is used in other drivers? > > The same.
Okay, thanks. Signed-off-by: Grant Likely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Kumar, this is a bug fix, can you pick it up please? -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (403) 399-0195 _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-embedded mailing list [email protected] https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-embedded
