From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sudeep Holla Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] pinctrl: single: Use a separate lockdep class Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 14:09:13 +0000 Message-ID: <565DAA09.3030201@arm.com> References: <1448644860-29323-1-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Walleij , Tony Lindgren , Grygorii Strashko Cc: Sudeep Holla , "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org On 01/12/15 14:06, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 6:20 PM, Sudeep Holla 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 >> Cc: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org >> Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner >> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla > > 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