On Mon, 23 Oct 2023, "Coelho, Luciano" wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-10-23 at 12:11 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Oct 2023, Luca Coelho wrote:
>> > The uncore code may not always be available (e.g. when we build the
>> > display code with Xe), so we can't always rely on having the uncore's
>> >
On Mon, 2023-10-23 at 12:11 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2023, Luca Coelho wrote:
> > The uncore code may not always be available (e.g. when we build the
> > display code with Xe), so we can't always rely on having the uncore's
> > spinlock.
> >
> > To handle this, split the spin_lo
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023, Luca Coelho wrote:
> The uncore code may not always be available (e.g. when we build the
> display code with Xe), so we can't always rely on having the uncore's
> spinlock.
>
> To handle this, split the spin_lock/unlock_irqsave/restore() into
> spin_lock/unlock() followed by a
The uncore code may not always be available (e.g. when we build the
display code with Xe), so we can't always rely on having the uncore's
spinlock.
To handle this, split the spin_lock/unlock_irqsave/restore() into
spin_lock/unlock() followed by a call to local_irq_save/restore() and
create wrapper
