Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 8 Sep 2015 22:03:41 +0200 (CEST) | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] irqchip: renesas-intc-irqpin: Propagate wake-up settings to parent |
| |
On Tue, 8 Sep 2015, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-renesas-intc-irqpin.c > >> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-renesas-intc-irqpin.c > >> @@ -283,6 +283,9 @@ static int intc_irqpin_irq_set_type(struct irq_data *d, unsigned int type) > >> static int intc_irqpin_irq_set_wake(struct irq_data *d, unsigned int on) > >> { > >> struct intc_irqpin_priv *p = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d); > >> + int hw_irq = irqd_to_hwirq(d); > >> + > >> + irq_set_irq_wake(p->irq[hw_irq].requested_irq, on); > > > > Are you sure that this does not make lockdep unhappy due to lock > > nesting? > > Actually I did see one lockdep warning, so I'm aware we're probably gonna > need a similar solution like commit a0a8bcf4670c2c69 ("gpiolib: irqchip: > use different lockdep class for each gpio irqchip")? > > To be honest, these lockdep warnings aren't helping much here: on embedded > we typical have several stacked interrupt controllers, so wake-up settings > have to propagate from the bottom to the top of the stack.
But ignoring them does not help much either, right?
> E.g. on sh73a0/kzm9g gpio-keys wake-up goes through 3 interrupt controllers: > pcf875x -> renesas-intc-irqpin -> gic.
So, yes a seperate locking class for that intc trainwreck is probably required.
Thanks,
tglx
| |