Hi Pavel,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pavel Machek <pavel@denx.de>
> Sent: 20 October 2020 21:44
> To: Prabhakar Mahadev Lad <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>
> Cc: cip-dev@lists.cip-project.org; Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <nobuhiro1.iwamatsu@toshiba.co.jp>; Pavel Machek <pavel@denx.de>; Biju Das
> <biju.das.jz@bp.renesas.com>
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4.19.y-cip 24/50] PCI: endpoint: Replace spinlock with mutex
> 
> Hi!
> 
> > commit 3d3248dbd018502f654064c78efcd2e165ab3486 upstream.
> >
> > The pci_epc_ops is not intended to be invoked from interrupt context.
> > Hence replace spin_lock_irqsave and spin_unlock_irqrestore with
> > mutex_lock and mutex_unlock respectively.
> 
> Could I get some kind of explanation why this is good idea?
> 
Apart of one mentioned above other point I would add is on a single core machine mutex_lock/unlock would be good choice.

Also to add the callbacks in controller driver might sleep. For example in raise_irq callback  [1], [2].

> As long as code protected by the locks does not sleep, spinlocks are
> okay... (but they should not need "_irqsave" variants).
> 
> They are likely to have better performance, too, when protected code
> is small and fast.
> 
I do agree with the above two points *if the code isn't sleeping*.

[1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/cip/linux-cip.git/tree/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-ep.c?h=linux-4.19.y-cip#n410
[2] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/cip/linux-cip.git/tree/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-cadence-ep.c?h=linux-4.19.y-cip#n310

Cheers,
Prabhakar

> Best regards,
> 								Pavel
> --
> DENX Software Engineering GmbH,      Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
> HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany