From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754768AbbHFHfg (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 6 Aug 2015 03:35:36 -0400
Received: from mailout3.w1.samsung.com ([210.118.77.13]:36250 "EHLO
	mailout3.w1.samsung.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751696AbbHFHfe (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 6 Aug 2015 03:35:34 -0400
X-AuditID: cbfec7f4-f79c56d0000012ee-d9-55c30e44c217
Message-id: <55C30E46.809@samsung.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2015 16:35:34 +0900
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/31.8.0
MIME-version: 1.0
To: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] regulator: Fix recursive mutex lockdep warning
References: <1438790528-4435-1-git-send-email-srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>
 <CAJKOXPeXUYV7vOEEvcmx9JSjjqcpNYTTovRF97oM4=gjet9vUQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <55C30CD9.9090408@linaro.org>
In-reply-to: <55C30CD9.9090408@linaro.org>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrALMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsVy+t/xK7oufIdDDfZ+5beY+vAJm8XrF4YW
	3650MFlc3jWHzaLt2DFWB1aPnbPusntsWtXJ5nHn2h42j74tqxg9Pm+SC2CN4rJJSc3JLEst
	0rdL4Mp4evkie8F+roqnVxayNjBO4ehi5OSQEDCRONt7mxHCFpO4cG89WxcjF4eQwFJGiTU/
	PzNBOF8YJeb8mAFWxSugJrFp93cmEJtFQFXi7LFNbCA2m4CxxOblS8BsUYEIieWrT0LVC0r8
	mHyPBcQWEbCQ+DdhLjOIzSyQITFj+hywuLCAu8TmS9NZIZZtYZR4ueUDWBGngJbE/APtQDYH
	UIO6xJQpuRC98hKb17xlnsAoMAvJilkIVbOQVC1gZF7FKJpamlxQnJSea6hXnJhbXJqXrpec
	n7uJERLOX3YwLj5mdYhRgINRiYf3wZpDoUKsiWXFlbmHGCU4mJVEeLdeAArxpiRWVqUW5ccX
	leakFh9ilOZgURLnnbvrfYiQQHpiSWp2ampBahFMlomDU6qBkW9K6ZI++VLRrFsJV378sD08
	d9b534Kh9o03T/1/La+4UF1lSe/Po3ed3v38IiWVfnCBmxivj82s2e21EzY6FyW1+k9a35v9
	kVNcivn31Xdm7Ud/v1/laByQouap/ez2791ixYek5SpYZO53OX6docNee0qqwE3Vdk9N/jQj
	N+f/G2+8OBWRoMRSnJFoqMVcVJwIAAId91VjAgAA
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 06.08.2015 16:29, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
> Thanks Krzysztof
> 
> On 06/08/15 02:39, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> --- a/drivers/regulator/core.c
>>> >+++ b/drivers/regulator/core.c
>>> >@@ -2919,7 +2919,7 @@ static int _regulator_get_voltage(struct
>>> regulator_dev *rdev)
>>> >         } else if (rdev->desc->fixed_uV && (rdev->desc->n_voltages
>>> == 1)) {
>>> >                 ret = rdev->desc->fixed_uV;
>>> >         } else if (rdev->supply) {
>>> >-               ret = regulator_get_voltage(rdev->supply);
>>> >+               ret = _regulator_get_voltage(rdev->supply->rdev);
>> Is the 'rdev' and 'rdev->supply' same regulators? If not then you are
>> just hiding false warning by removing locks thus introducing real
>> issue...
> They are the not the same regulators, and hence they are not locking the
> same mutex, looks like this is a false positive warning from lockdep. I
> can't think of any use case which could result in ABBA type lockup too,
> so we can ignore this patch for now.
> 
> Not sure why did the lockdep think that this is same lock :-)

I think the warning appears because the class of lock is the same but
there is nesting information:
	"May be due to missing lock nesting notation"
Fixing this would require adding the nesting information.

Best regards,
Krzysztof