[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1603241355110.3978@nanos>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 13:56:52 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
cc: Charles Keepax <ckeepax@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, patches@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] mfd: arizona: Fix lockdep recursion warning on
set_irq_wake
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016, Lee Jones wrote:
> FAO Thomas
>
> > Lockdep explicitly sets all the irq_desc locks as a single lock-class,
> > which causes a "possible recursive locking detected" warning when we
> > attempt to propagate the IRQ wake to our parent IRQ in
> > arizona_irq_set_wake. Although this appears to be a false positive
> > because an IRQ is unlikely to be its own parent, this was clearly
> > intentionally prohibited.
> >
> > To avoid this lockdep warning, take a cue from the regmap-irq system,
> > and add bus lock callbacks on the IRQ chip and propagate the wake in
> > the bus unlock which will happen after the desc lock has been released
> > and thus avoid the issue.
>
> This looks like a hack to me. I'd like Thomas (Cc'ed) to look it over.
irq_set_lockdep_class() exists for a reason. See kernel/irq/generic-chip.c or
drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c for examples.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists