Hi, On Wed, 3 Jun 2015 22:52:47 +0300 Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@xxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Geert, > > On 05/19/2015 12:38 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Grygorii.Strashko@xxxxxxxxxx > > <grygorii.strashko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 05/18/2015 05:31 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > >>> On Sun, 17 May 2015, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >>>>>>> At least the recursive locking message no longer appears after the revert. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> [ 30.591905] PM: Syncing filesystems ... done. > >>>>>>> [ 30.623060] Freezing user space processes ... (elapsed 0.003 seconds) done. > >>>>>>> [ 30.634470] Freezing remaining freezable tasks ... (elapsed 0.002 seconds) done. > >>>>>>> [ 30.658288] sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Synchronizing SCSI cache > >>>>>>> [ 30.663678] > >>>>>>> [ 30.663681] ============================================= > >>>>>>> [ 30.663683] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ] > >>>>>>> [ 30.663688] 4.1.0-rc3 #1115 Not tainted > >>>>>>> [ 30.663693] --------------------------------------------- > >>>>>>> [ 30.663697] suspend.sh/2319 is trying to acquire lock: > >>>>>>> [ 30.663719] (class){......}, at: [<c0096ebc>] __irq_get_desc_lock+0x48/0x88 > >>>>>>> [ 30.663722] > >>>>>>> [ 30.663722] but task is already holding lock: > >>>>>>> [ 30.663734] (class){......}, at: [<c0096ebc>] __irq_get_desc_lock+0x48/0x88 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Does this mean .set_irq_wake() cannot call irq_set_irq_wake()? > >>> > >>> It can call it, if it's guaranteed that this wont deadlock. > >>> > >>> To tell lockdep that you sure about that, you need to set a different > >>> lock class for the child interrupts. irq_set_lockdep_class() is what > >>> you want to use here. > >> > >> Hm. Seems we already have corresponding call in gpiochip_irq_map: > >> > >> static int gpiochip_irq_map(struct irq_domain *d, unsigned int irq, > >> irq_hw_number_t hwirq) > >> { > >> struct gpio_chip *chip = d->host_data; > >> > >> irq_set_chip_data(irq, chip); > >> irq_set_lockdep_class(irq, &gpiochip_irq_lock_class); > >> ^^^^ > > > > That piece of code sets the lockdep class of the gpiochip's interrupts, not > > the parent interrupt. > > > > Found out the hard way by adding some debug code ;-) > [..] > > > > However, I cannot reproduce the problem on sh73a0/kzm9g with > > s2ram on a current tree (renesas-drivers-2015-05-19-v4.1-rc4 from > > (https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/geert/renesas-drivers.git), using > > > > CONFIG_LOCKDEP_SUPPORT=y > > CONFIG_LOCKDEP=y > > CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCKDEP=y > > CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y > > > > Wake-up from gpio-keys works fine, no scary messages. > > > >> commit e45d1c80c0eee88e82751461e9cac49d9ed287bc > >> Author: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> Date: Tue Apr 22 14:01:46 2014 +0200 > >> > >> gpio: put GPIO IRQs into their own lock clas > >> > >> added in Kernel v3.16 > >> > >> Roger, can you confirm that you've observed this issue with latest kernel, pls? > > > > Yes please. Thanks! Issue is reproducible on v4.1-rc6 > > Unfortunately, I was able to reproduce it, but have no clue how to fix it gracefully. > lockdep_set_class_and_subclass(..,gpio_chip->base)? > > HW configuration which generates lockdep warning: > > [SOC GPIO bankA.gpioX] <- irq - [pcf875x.gpioY] <- irq - DevZ.enable_irq_wake(pcf_gpioY_irq); > > There stacked GPIO chips, but gpiolib uses only one lockdep class for all GPIOirqchips - > - gpiochip_irq_lock_class. If this is a gpiolib core issue are we (dra7-evm) the only stacked GPIO users facing this problem? Linus/Alexandre/Geert, Please advise what can be done for v4.1. The warning is annoying for dra7-evm users. Should we temporarily revert the patch even though it is correct and add it back when the gpiolib core issue is fixed? cheers, -roger -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html