Re: [PATCH 1/2] pinctrl: single: Use a separate lockdep class

[Sudeep Holla]

On 01/12/15 14:06, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 6:20 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> 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 <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: linux-gpio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx>
>
> 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.

--
Regards,
Sudeep
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/