2016-09-18 10:52 GMT+02:00 Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx>: > On 2016-09-16 19:58, Wolfram Sang wrote: >> >> Same here. And if it prevents us from false positive lockdep reports, I >> am all for fixing it. > > Except it doesn't, when I think some more about it... > > If you have two gpio-expanders on the same depth but on different i2c > branches you still end up with a splat if one is used to control a mux > to reach the other. > > The only way to solve it for good, that I see, is to have every instance > of the gpio-expander mutex in its own class. That might lead to many > lockdep classes but then again, how many gpio expanders could there be > in a system? A dozen or two seems extreme, so maybe that is the correct > approach anyway? Wouldn't it be enough to have a separate class for every base (as in: not having any parent adapters) i2c adapter? Best regards, Bartosz Golaszewski -- 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