[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160915075150.GO5008@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 09:51:50 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-gpio <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: lockdep: incorrect deadlock warning with two GPIO expanders
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 02:29:24PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 5:33 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 05:16:14PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>
> >> AFAIK there is no clean way to tell that a GPIO is used by an I2C
> >> multiplexer at probe time. Linus, Alexandre could you confirm?
>
> Nominally, the GPIO descriptors are just abstract resources such
> as regulators or clocks, they can be used for a lot but just like
> a clock, regulator, dma channel etc does not know who is using
> it and for what, it does not know this, no.
>
> > You cannot inspect the device tree while probing?
>
> Of course it *can* but we would end up encoding a special
> case every time something like this happens, tied to just
> device tree, then another bolt-on for ACPI etc.
>
> I have a hard time following the problem really, I'm
> afraid I'm simply just not smart enough :(
Why would this be DT or ACPI specific? Linux itself has a tree/graph of
all busses and devices right? That's what all this drivers/base/ stuff
is on about.
So can't you walk up that and see if you encounter the exact same driver
again?
Something like:
for (nr = 0, parent = dev->parent; parent; parent = parent->parent) {
if (parent->device_driver == &pca953x_driver.driver)
nr++;
}
Again, I have no clue how any of this works, but that seems like
something that ought to work.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists