From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bartosz Golaszewski Subject: [PATCH] gpio: pca953x: add a comment explaining the need for a lockdep subclass Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 11:54:14 +0200 Message-ID: <1474883655-15824-1-git-send-email-bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f54.google.com ([74.125.82.54]:38485 "EHLO mail-wm0-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S935070AbcIZJyY (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Sep 2016 05:54:24 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-f54.google.com with SMTP id l132so139712335wmf.1 for ; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 02:54:23 -0700 (PDT) Sender: linux-i2c-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Walleij , Alexandre Courbot , Andy Shevchenko , Vignesh R , Yong Li , Geert Uytterhoeven , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Wolfram Sang , Peter Rosin Cc: linux-i2c , linux-gpio , LKML , Bartosz Golaszewski Since there's an rc8 I thought I'd send a follow-up patch to the series addressing the lockdep false positive in pca953x. The reason for setting the subclass in the probe function is not explained in the code nor is it obvious at first glance. This patch adds a comment explaining the problem. Rebased on top of current i2c/for-next. Bartosz Golaszewski (1): gpio: pca953x: add a comment explaining the need for a lockdep subclass drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+) -- 2.7.4