[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151203180721.GU23396@atomide.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 10:07:22 -0800
From: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] pinctrl: single: Use a separate lockdep class
* Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com> [151201 06:10]:
>
>
> On 01/12/15 14:06, Linus Walleij wrote:
> >On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 6:20 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com> 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@...aro.org>
> >>Cc: linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org
> >>Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> >>Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
> >
> >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 <tony@...mide.com>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists