From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bartosz Golaszewski Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] gpio: fix an incorrect lockdep warning Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2016 21:43:10 +0200 Message-ID: References: <1474041765-17818-1-git-send-email-bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> <20160916172621.GA1426@katana> <20160916175842.GD1426@katana> <587cdb60-d7fe-3ab2-b635-02c5072e102e@axentia.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <587cdb60-d7fe-3ab2-b635-02c5072e102e@axentia.se> Sender: linux-gpio-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Peter Rosin Cc: Wolfram Sang , Linus Walleij , Alexandre Courbot , Andy Shevchenko , Vignesh R , Yong Li , Geert Uytterhoeven , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , linux-i2c , linux-gpio , LKML List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org 2016-09-18 10:52 GMT+02:00 Peter Rosin : > On 2016-09-16 19:58, Wolfram Sang wrote: >> >> Same here. And if it prevents us from false positive lockdep reports, I >> am all for fixing it. > > Except it doesn't, when I think some more about it... > > If you have two gpio-expanders on the same depth but on different i2c > branches you still end up with a splat if one is used to control a mux > to reach the other. > > The only way to solve it for good, that I see, is to have every instance > of the gpio-expander mutex in its own class. That might lead to many > lockdep classes but then again, how many gpio expanders could there be > in a system? A dozen or two seems extreme, so maybe that is the correct > approach anyway? Wouldn't it be enough to have a separate class for every base (as in: not having any parent adapters) i2c adapter? Best regards, Bartosz Golaszewski