Hi Tali,

> So when we encounter a deadlock with this spinlock we decided to get rid of this
> unused feature and get both a stable fix for the issue + performance benefits.
> We work closely with all our customers so we know that this HW
> feature is useless to them.

Okay, fair enough. Thanks for the detailed explanation!

> > Why do we keep this array if we drop the support?
> >
> This array represents the HW so we left it as-is. But I agree it can
> be shortened to one\two.

Would be nice, I think.

> OK, we will move the last two to a separate patch. BTW, this change
> appears in the title as well.

Yes, but I still think it should be a seperate change.

> But now I'm not sure: if you already apply for-next patches [1:7], and
> we change patch [8:10]
> do we need to re-submit [1:7]?

Nope, they are already in linux-next. They seemed like good fixes even
without the support for the new SoC, so I applied them right away. I
hope this was okay.

> Thanks, Wolfram, for your review!
> Much appreciated

You are welcome :)

Happy hacking,

   Wolfram