From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Felipe Balbi Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/13] OMAP: Introduce a user list for each voltage domain instance in the voltage driver. Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 05:28:47 -0500 Message-ID: <2aa29e22fb1502b14ac7850a12e68e5b@secure211.sgcpanel.com> References: <1282130412-12027-1-git-send-email-thara@ti.com> <1282130412-12027-2-git-send-email-thara@ti.com> <87eiddgjr7.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> <20100902094327.31a96174@surf> <4C7F5DB4.70306@ti.com> <38353bada7f16740e8008e6d3f2748bd@secure211.sgcpanel.com> <4C7F799D.8020207@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from ns1.siteground211.com ([209.62.36.12]:45044 "EHLO serv01.siteground211.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750933Ab0IBK24 (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Sep 2010 06:28:56 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4C7F799D.8020207@ti.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Nishanth Menon Cc: Thomas Petazzoni , Kevin Hilman , "Gopinath, Thara" , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, paul@pwsan.com, "Sripathy, Vishwanath" , "Sawant, Anand" , "Cousson, Benoit" Hi, On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 05:17:01 -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote: > note - if we allow unlock of irqs at this point, we cannot predictably > progress down the logic. spin_unlock() would not re-enable IRQs, would it ? Isn't it so that spin_unlock_irq() would be the one re-enabling IRQ ? -- balbi