Re: [PATCH 1/2] pinctrl: single: Use a separate lockdep class

[Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 6:20 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: linux-gpio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx>

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html