lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Dec]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] pinctrl: single: Use a separate lockdep class
From
Date


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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-12-01 15:21    [W:0.094 / U:4.236 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site