From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1011137B41F; Tue, 11 Aug 2026 05:42:47 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1786426969; cv=none; b=AjMMhb0ZK8D2v/R1la9ehnuawgnl46UbTBoDkYbA7kjbf6H8A+k+Yu5XZsGa8qAaBa4ElKCdrhxw83uk93dJQI1HE2Xyxm9hZirRmjZIQHbrDVYrRYt00yJQjkNTapTfOPdnqEgTP0z/0mFdlVZJlLswtarxqhvkSPqbbuZ9H7g= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1786426969; c=relaxed/simple; bh=jBdDr5+zYESwQ6ezlgAcxddFBKF7TxDe8OsvLUhsx70=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=jVuPBgaCzCMKKwkcGkNt/upUCESanWkDjbSOF3tHlESsWRedD0SofRiTeR9amSHQ7GHTxSowRE91f+hxs7hCXZUk53W8tJKo2c4MwjyB/kpE27JVx8FPWPq+UKdaLIET6FdW9PfmKcEfUL6P2kAV15MWgemNEEV+GQrJGVy/GH8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=P4z3gDD1; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="P4z3gDD1" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1786426968; x=1817962968; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=jBdDr5+zYESwQ6ezlgAcxddFBKF7TxDe8OsvLUhsx70=; b=P4z3gDD1p8k9NuZAe1vDknjsbb5T6dUkEgi3G81I3cEbujiBoZF9LnXt hwwW5NkHfSkQV2I51TtbjZ66gUtfPVbRDjNYCv1M7dTc5tST7GtQx6A/5 rcX7iHc3YgwWMgO+Wi0gNU5N1gAjX7Uhm+47an12Yn4n9J8aMC4AZNcQo XDq8c9I2uo5TEUobDZfRJ79obh/G8gEvtzsSb4La7bjkojg4mR6M8zvo8 YFo1jbFIi1kNFcM75lvBpNy4k8VZLGQPfY0j8P3k7YjUiZPN/UY7OEqM1 PtVIVO/JTu3t3srEwUeh6gcsZc5o1M8L+tuL6xTeIYVYQNxRhy6UF4QJ7 g==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: Pn1OUvR9REqVnKYp+K3nSA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: EypBtwYFTceyzCaA1soXaw== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11871"; a="86071740" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.25,217,1779174000"; d="scan'208";a="86071740" Received: from orviesa003.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.143]) by fmvoesa112.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 10 Aug 2026 22:42:47 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: I2CqqCRPRi+MAH0BoEgeSw== X-CSE-MsgGUID: zlXKvOq2QtKZ+fK9e2EAvw== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.25,217,1779174000"; d="scan'208";a="266731101" Received: from kniemiec-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.245.244.207]) by ORVIESA003-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 10 Aug 2026 22:42:45 -0700 Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2026 08:42:42 +0300 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Javier Carrasco Cc: Jonathan Cameron , Lars-Peter Clausen , Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , David Lechner , Nuno =?iso-8859-1?Q?S=E1?= , Andy Shevchenko , linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] iio: light: veml6031x00: add support for events and trigger Message-ID: References: <20260807-veml6031x00-v5-0-e60876fb3640@gmail.com> <20260807-veml6031x00-v5-4-e60876fb3640@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - c/o Alberga Business Park, 6 krs, Bertel Jungin Aukio 5, 02600 Espoo On Tue, Aug 11, 2026 at 01:09:29AM +0200, Javier Carrasco wrote: > On Mon Aug 10, 2026 at 5:32 PM CEST, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 07, 2026 at 03:51:55PM +0200, Javier Carrasco wrote: ... > >> +static int veml6031x00_set_interrupt(struct veml6031x00_data *data, bool state) > >> + __must_hold(&data->irq_lock) > > > > The sparse annotations is fine, but lockdep one is even better. > > I have seen a few instances in a number of subsystems where both are used > at the same time. What is the preferred alternative here? Both. lockdep is a runtime check, sparse one is a build-time. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko