[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150625153325.GR14071@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 16:33:25 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@...omium.org>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@....samsung.com>,
Antti Palosaari <crope@....fi>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Bard Liao <bardliao@...ltek.com>,
Oder Chiou <oder_chiou@...ltek.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>,
alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
Anatol Pomozov <anatol.pomozov@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] regmap: add configurable lock class key for
lockdep
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 05:03:00PM +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> On 06/25/2015 03:21 PM, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >wouldn't it be better to use the mutex_lock_nested() and co to explicitly
> >express your hierarchy?
> That would require that the hierarchy is known in advance. The hierarchy
> depends on the hardware topology. Different systems will have different
> hierarchies where the relationship between locks can change and it will be
> hard to find a hierarchy that works across all topologies.
It depends on what you use as the key for the nested locking stuff. If
you assign a key per regmap (casting the pointer to an integer, using an
IDR or something). I don't know if that creates problems for the
locking code, I'd not expect so but then I'd not have expected the
problem in the first place.
As far as I can tell we're likely to end up needing a key per regmap or
something similar.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists