From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] ARM: omap2+: omap_hwmod: Fix false lockdep warning Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 10:23:32 +0100 Message-ID: <20150209092332.GO5029@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <1423226916-18804-1-git-send-email-peter.ujfalusi@ti.com> <20150206141346.GP21418@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <54D4E64C.7060208@ti.com> <20150206183205.GS21418@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <54D5154F.8080208@ti.com> <54D86F74.7070703@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <54D86F74.7070703@ti.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Peter Ujfalusi Cc: Tony Lindgren , paul@pwsan.com, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, balbi@ti.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Tero Kristo List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 10:27:32AM +0200, Peter Ujfalusi wrote: > As I recall there is a plan to remove the hwmod static database and move it or > generate it from DT? Not sure when and how this will be done, but will it > affect the lockdep_set_class() way? Yes, struct lock_class_key wants to be in static storage. So you could still allocate a few of those statically and then use them where appropriate, but it'd going to be more work. The advantage of having the 1:1 relation is that any parent hierarchy works naturally. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: peterz@infradead.org (Peter Zijlstra) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 10:23:32 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 0/2] ARM: omap2+: omap_hwmod: Fix false lockdep warning In-Reply-To: <54D86F74.7070703@ti.com> References: <1423226916-18804-1-git-send-email-peter.ujfalusi@ti.com> <20150206141346.GP21418@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <54D4E64C.7060208@ti.com> <20150206183205.GS21418@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <54D5154F.8080208@ti.com> <54D86F74.7070703@ti.com> Message-ID: <20150209092332.GO5029@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 10:27:32AM +0200, Peter Ujfalusi wrote: > As I recall there is a plan to remove the hwmod static database and move it or > generate it from DT? Not sure when and how this will be done, but will it > affect the lockdep_set_class() way? Yes, struct lock_class_key wants to be in static storage. So you could still allocate a few of those statically and then use them where appropriate, but it'd going to be more work. The advantage of having the 1:1 relation is that any parent hierarchy works naturally.