From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) (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 8E29F3F0758 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2026 16:00:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1770307245; cv=none; b=JwZ+i9/qzXUTscI6/Rdg3KfQdvfLpq8VMMYsV3HdCrl/ZkU3+WrB3ASoHHR1q4mm9KmbR9jMRmUJgJoktCUaaEfQmVfneN80yZsxpQJANK6KTfBW3+nTMuVqs+ue9fOCBxXHLAHXBRJSXzzaIw9WJG/PKmOkQbYWB34nSqaEvVQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1770307245; c=relaxed/simple; bh=3IYAtFChRhUR9aPSjBL8aTL9oIZv0Ud4zv6jZRSMwgY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=RtJ1hMfJvdzrRbvvBOKGabnMYYGSjvil0TugKPiHLb2MrBmibgk7V4jQYNg2prh1jHAZRROOMnQosodwmrEZLRcHsuHmY48BEDL+bEsH1BMm/R8SaXYd86xc4JCI/a8zLdAOrwz2Rtg43nQ/BDS5mLQzb8GGdsHSebmhYw9sVvg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=s+xF6yMW; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=VrKRyQdr; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="s+xF6yMW"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="VrKRyQdr" Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2026 17:00:41 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1770307243; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=J4eJBnpC1sd0Kvvv9UCtdgEuOI6p24RrICHzpa/9gZA=; b=s+xF6yMWk3uep8E204ZYbr08wyspcKBUvYy/8nyysVpowCnMzA/J/SUGNszEYUMja8joKS j7DqDGHQjMHMKse7hUFDm/bWrD0gIZScIvjhsTcwPkT/mvOEC8fPmzDdNu6I4Px4jvRWco ONkQeW0j5FP2Vq0vfmcCMJ9dey+s2Hlkhqo//tFn8Us9qQpyV43jCnf8Kj7jCfnZgvZDqn Hl7tUYblwhBBkANHi5npvh9PlE6wAvsKSndMC7A7K9pe2KQ5OTJcqjHic6HqoxuXvaHoVc kpuonWhTcczN3cWmjFWre5yvOn7gEhYYsGa5BKM0PvxBeg3lzn8za5qlrRBUog== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1770307243; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=J4eJBnpC1sd0Kvvv9UCtdgEuOI6p24RrICHzpa/9gZA=; b=VrKRyQdr+9xBzcK8iu6U9qW4LShja6oKnp5IQy+MgTrpFT9AerujRJK1NXmv65hWD3xzWv ErdVPb8QAY34ZSAw== From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior To: Cosmin-Gabriel Tanislav Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , Linus Walleij , Clark Williams , Steven Rostedt , Bartosz Golaszewski , "linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev" Subject: Re: RE: [PATCH v2] pinctrl: renesas: rzt2h: fix invalid wait context Message-ID: <20260205160041.TIoBDYAk@linutronix.de> References: <20260205103930.666051-1-cosmin-gabriel.tanislav.xa@renesas.com> <20260205120433.iKQIknOA@linutronix.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On 2026-02-05 14:30:36 [+0000], Cosmin-Gabriel Tanislav wrote: > Hi Sebastian, thank you for your feedback. > > I agree that a lockdep splat should not warrant a spinlock_t to > raw_spinlock_t conversion since that's not always the correct solution > for it. > > This driver delegates masking/unmasking to the parent IRQ chip, and none > of the local irq_chip callbacks take the pctrl->lock. > > The pctrl->lock is taken in the gpio_chip->request, ->get_direction, > ->direction_input, ->direction_output, pinmux_ops->set_mux and > gpio_irq_chip->child_to_parent_hwirq implementations. > > My understanding is that the only issue is that ->get_direction takes a > spinlock_t while being called from __setup_irq() which holds a > raw_spinlock_t with IRQs disabled, rather than spinlock_t being taken > inside a hardirq context, which is what I tried to describe in the > commit message. > > Am I missing something? I see. Usually there is also mask/ unmask which makes this mandatory for this as well. In that case it is probably just the invocation from __setup(). Instead of nitpicking here Reviewed-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior and you said that the splat does warrant for the lock splat so I hope the best ;) Sebastian