| Message ID | 1448644860-29323-1-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 6:20 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.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@linaro.org> > Cc: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org > Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> I need Tony's ACK on this patch before applying. Is it a regression that needs to go into fixes? Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 01/12/15 14:06, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 6:20 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.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@linaro.org> >> Cc: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org >> Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> >> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.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.
* Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.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@arm.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@linaro.org> > >>Cc: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org > >>Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> > >>Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.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@atomide.com> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> [151203 10:07]: > * Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.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@arm.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@linaro.org> > > >>Cc: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org > > >>Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> > > >>Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.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@atomide.com> Actually this needs to be merged together with 1/2 once the pending issues are fixed as this will add a lockdep warning with 1/2. So for now: Un-Acked-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c index ef04b962c3d5..945a7d0f0704 100644 --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c @@ -255,6 +255,13 @@ static enum pin_config_param pcs_bias[] = { }; /* + * This lock class tells lockdep that irqchip core that this single + * pinctrl can be in a different category than its parents, so it won't + * report false recursion. + */ +static struct lock_class_key pcs_lock_class; + +/* * REVISIT: Reads and writes could eventually use regmap or something * generic. But at least on omaps, some mux registers are performance * critical as they may need to be remuxed every time before and after @@ -1716,6 +1723,7 @@ static int pcs_irqdomain_map(struct irq_domain *d, unsigned int irq, irq_set_chip_data(irq, pcs_soc); irq_set_chip_and_handler(irq, &pcs->chip, handle_level_irq); + irq_set_lockdep_class(irq, &pcs_lock_class); irq_set_noprobe(irq); return 0;
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@linaro.org> Cc: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> --- drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)