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.
> >> Many GPIO drivers do that, as they need to propagate wake-up state to the
> >> parent interrupt controller?
> >
> > As I remember, there was similar problem, so I found corresponding patch (just FYI)
> >
> > ab2b926 mfd: Fix twl6030 lockdep recursion warning on setting wake IRQs
> >
> > Not sure such kind of solution is the best choice (
>
> That looks like a convoluted solution...
Indeed. See above.
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
