[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1474883655-15824-1-git-send-email-bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 11:54:14 +0200
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Vignesh R <vigneshr@...com>, Yong Li <yong.b.li@...el.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>, Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
Cc: linux-i2c <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-gpio <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
Subject: [PATCH] gpio: pca953x: add a comment explaining the need for a lockdep subclass
Since there's an rc8 I thought I'd send a follow-up patch to the
series addressing the lockdep false positive in pca953x.
The reason for setting the subclass in the probe function is not
explained in the code nor is it obvious at first glance. This patch
adds a comment explaining the problem.
Rebased on top of current i2c/for-next.
Bartosz Golaszewski (1):
gpio: pca953x: add a comment explaining the need for a lockdep
subclass
drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
--
2.7.4
Powered by blists - more mailing lists