Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 3 Dec 2015 13:46:46 -0800 | From | Tony Lindgren <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] pinctrl: single: Use a separate lockdep class |
| |
* Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> [151203 10:07]: > * Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> [151201 06:10]: > > > > > > 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. > > No problem with this patch, so: > > Acked-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
Actually this needs to be merged together with 1/2 once the pending issues are fixed as this will add a lockdep warning with 1/2.
So for now:
Un-Acked-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
| |