From: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@gmail.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
Vignesh R <vigneshr@ti.com>, Yong Li <yong.b.li@intel.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>,
linux-i2c <linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-gpio <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] gpio: pca953x: fix an incorrect lockdep warning
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 07:45:21 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160921054521.GB1484@katana> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1474041765-17818-5-git-send-email-bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2545 bytes --]
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 06:02:45PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> If an I2C GPIO multiplexer is driven by a GPIO provided by an expander
> when there's a second expander using the same device driver on one of
> the I2C bus segments, lockdep prints a deadlock warning when trying to
> set the direction or the value of the GPIOs provided by the second
> expander.
>
> The below diagram presents the setup:
>
> - - - - -
> ------- --------- Bus segment 1 | |
> | | | |--------------- Devices
> | | SCL/SDA | | | |
> | Linux |-----------| I2C MUX | - - - - -
> | | | | | Bus segment 2
> | | | | |-------------------
> ------- | --------- |
> | | - - - - -
> ------------ | MUX GPIO | |
> | | | Devices
> | GPIO | | | |
> | Expander 1 |---- - - - - -
> | | |
> ------------ | SCL/SDA
> |
> ------------
> | |
> | GPIO |
> | Expander 2 |
> | |
> ------------
>
> The reason for lockdep warning is that we take the chip->i2c_lock in
> pca953x_gpio_set_value() or pca953x_gpio_direction_output() and then
> come right back to pca953x_gpio_set_value() when the GPIO mux kicks
> in. The locks actually protect different expanders, but for lockdep
> both are of the same class, so it says:
>
> Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>
> CPU0
> ----
> lock(&chip->i2c_lock);
> lock(&chip->i2c_lock);
>
> *** DEADLOCK ***
>
> May be due to missing lock nesting notation
>
> In order to get rid of the warning, retrieve the adapter nesting depth
> and use it as lockdep subclass for chip->i2c_lock.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
Linus, we'd like that in 4.9. Can I get your ack for the gpio part?
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-09-21 5:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-09-16 16:02 [PATCH v2 0/4] gpio: fix an incorrect lockdep warning Bartosz Golaszewski
2016-09-16 16:02 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] i2c: export i2c_adapter_depth() Bartosz Golaszewski
2016-09-16 16:02 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] lockdep: make MAX_LOCKDEP_SUBCLASSES unconditionally visible Bartosz Golaszewski
2016-09-16 16:02 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] i2c: add a warning to i2c_adapter_depth() Bartosz Golaszewski
2016-09-16 16:02 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] gpio: pca953x: fix an incorrect lockdep warning Bartosz Golaszewski
2016-09-21 5:45 ` Wolfram Sang [this message]
2016-09-23 8:10 ` Linus Walleij
2016-09-24 8:55 ` Wolfram Sang
2016-09-24 9:15 ` Wolfram Sang
2016-09-24 14:26 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2016-09-16 17:26 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] gpio: " Wolfram Sang
2016-09-16 17:45 ` Peter Rosin
2016-09-16 17:58 ` Wolfram Sang
2016-09-18 8:52 ` Peter Rosin
2016-09-18 19:43 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2016-09-18 19:45 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2016-09-19 8:01 ` Peter Rosin
2016-09-19 8:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-09-19 8:48 ` Peter Rosin
2016-09-19 9:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-09-20 8:48 ` Peter Rosin
2016-09-20 10:07 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2016-09-20 10:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-09-20 10:48 ` Peter Rosin
2016-09-20 11:30 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2016-09-20 12:32 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2016-09-20 15:33 ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-09-21 9:47 ` Peter Rosin
2016-09-17 1:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-09-17 10:18 ` Wolfram Sang
2016-09-17 18:59 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2016-09-24 8:56 ` Wolfram Sang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160921054521.GB1484@katana \
--to=wsa@the-dreams.de \
--cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=bgolaszewski@baylibre.com \
--cc=geert+renesas@glider.be \
--cc=gnurou@gmail.com \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peda@axentia.se \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=vigneshr@ti.com \
--cc=yong.b.li@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox