From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752067AbbLCSH2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Dec 2015 13:07:28 -0500 Received: from muru.com ([72.249.23.125]:50568 "EHLO muru.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751842AbbLCSH1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Dec 2015 13:07:27 -0500 Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 10:07:22 -0800 From: Tony Lindgren To: Sudeep Holla Cc: Linus Walleij , Grygorii Strashko , "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] pinctrl: single: Use a separate lockdep class Message-ID: <20151203180721.GU23396@atomide.com> References: <1448644860-29323-1-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <565DAA09.3030201@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <565DAA09.3030201@arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Sudeep Holla [151201 06:10]: > > > On 01/12/15 14:06, Linus Walleij wrote: > >On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 6:20 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > >>The single pinmux controller can be cascaded to the other interrupt > >>controllers. Hence when propagating wake-up settings to its parent > >>interrupt controller, there's possiblity of detecting possible recursive > >>locking and getting lockdep warning. > >> > >>This patch avoids this false positive by using a separate lockdep class > >>for this single pinctrl interrupts. > >> > >>Cc: Linus Walleij > >>Cc: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org > >>Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner > >>Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla > > > >I need Tony's ACK on this patch before applying. > > > >Is it a regression that needs to go into fixes? > > > > Not really, only needed by PATCH 2/2 to avoid recursive locking. No problem with this patch, so: Acked-by: Tony Lindgren