The following is the lockdep warning which detects possible
deadlock condition with the way ar->lock and ar->list_lock
are being used.

  (&(&ar->lock)->rlock){+.-...}, at: [<ffffffffa0492d13>] ath6kl_indicate_tx_activity+0x83/0x110 [ath6kl]
 but this lock took another, SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock in the past:
  (&(&ar->list_lock)->rlock){+.+...}

 and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.

 other info that might help us debug this:
  Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:

        CPU0                    CPU1
        ----                    ----
   lock(&(&ar->list_lock)->rlock);
                                local_irq_disable();
                                lock(&(&ar->lock)->rlock);
                                lock(&(&ar->list_lock)->rlock);
   <Interrupt>
     lock(&(&ar->lock)->rlock);

  *** DEADLOCK ***

softirqs have to be disabled when acquiring ar->list_lock to avoid
the above deadlock condition. When the above warning printed the
interface is still up and running without issue.
Reported-by: NKalle Valo <kvalo@qca.qualcomm.com>
Signed-off-by: NVasanthakumar Thiagarajan <vthiagar@qca.qualcomm.com>
Signed-off-by: NKalle Valo <kvalo@qca.qualcomm.com>