On 2022. 09. 01. 9:51, Csókás Bence wrote:

On 2022. 08. 31. 18:24, Andrew Lunn wrote:
 >>> Please keep to reverse christmas tree
 >>
 >> checkpatch didn't tell me that was a requirement... Easy to fix though.
 >
 > checkpatch does not have the smarts to detect this. And it is a netdev
 > only thing.

I thought checkpatch also has the per-subsystem rules, too.

 > There is also a different between not being able to sleep, and not
 > being able to process an interrupt for some other hardware. You got a
 > report about taking a mutex in atomic context. That just means you
 > cannot sleep, probably because a spinlock is held. That is very
 > different to not being able to handle interrupts. You only need
 > spin_lock_irqsave() if the interrupt handler also needs the same spin
 > lock to protect it from a thread using the spin lock.

Alright, I will switch to plain `spin_lock()` then.

By the way, what about `&fep->tmreg_lock`? Should that also be switched 
to `spin_lock()`? If not, how should I handle the nested locking? 
Calling `spin_lock_irqsave(&fep->tmreg_lock)` after 
`spin_lock(&&fep->ptp_clk_lock)` seems pointless. Should I lock with 
`spin_lock_irqsave(&fep->ptp_clk_lock)` there?