Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] pinctrl: single: Use a separate lockdep class | From | Sudeep Holla <> | Date | Tue, 1 Dec 2015 14:09:13 +0000 |
| |
On 01/12/15 14:06, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 6:20 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > >> The single pinmux controller can be cascaded to the other interrupt >> controllers. Hence when propagating wake-up settings to its parent >> interrupt controller, there's possiblity of detecting possible recursive >> locking and getting lockdep warning. >> >> This patch avoids this false positive by using a separate lockdep class >> for this single pinctrl interrupts. >> >> Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> >> Cc: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org >> Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> >> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> > > I need Tony's ACK on this patch before applying. > > Is it a regression that needs to go into fixes? >
Not really, only needed by PATCH 2/2 to avoid recursive locking.
-- Regards, Sudeep
| |