[PATCH] sa1111: Prevent deadlock in resume path

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 11:33:46PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> Dne St 26. května 2010 22:18:24 Russell King - ARM Linux napsal(a):
> > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 09:15:57PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > Dne St 26. května 2010 21:14:25 Russell King - ARM Linux napsal(a):
> > > > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 09:11:44PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > > > This patch reorganises the sa1111_resume() function in a manner the
> > > > > spinlock happens after calling the sa1111_wake(). This fixes two
> > > > > bugs:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 1) This function called sa1111_wake() which tried to claim the same
> > > > > spinlock
> > > > > 
> > > > >    the sa1111_resume() already claimed. This would result in certain
> > > > >    deadlock.
> > > > >    
> > > > >    Original idea for this part: Russell King <linux at arm.linux.org.uk>
> > > > > 
> > > > > 2) The function didn't unlock the spinlock in case the chip didn't
> > > > > report
> > > > > 
> > > > >    correct ID.
> > > > >    
> > > > >    Original idea for this part: Julia Lawall <julia at diku.dk>
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut at gmail.com>
> > > > 
> > > > Yea, good enough.
> > > 
> > > You want me to fight your patch tracking system or will you just merge it
> > > into your tree ?
> > 
> > What do you mean "fight" ?  Just send a standard git formatted patch
> > to the email address with an additional KernelVersion: tag.  It's
> > not at all hard.
> 
> What address, how, any howto?
> 
> btw. why ?! Look at Eric, he doesn't need such crap, why do you complicate it so 
> much ?

You expect a helpful reply with such an attitude.  Sorry, I'm not going
to bother with attacks like this.  You earn the prize of figuring it out
yourself.