2016-09-18 21:43 GMT+02:00 Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: > 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? > Eeek -ESENTTOOEARLY Of course not - since we could have two branches deeper on the tree with the same problem. Nevermind my last e-mail. 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