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

[Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

* Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> [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@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?
> >
> 
> Not really, only needed by PATCH 2/2 to avoid recursive locking.

No problem with this patch, so:

Acked-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx>
--
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