22.03.2021 17:46, Thierry Reding пишет:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 02:59:59PM +0200, Mikko Perttunen wrote:
>> To avoid false lockdep warnings, give each client lock a different
>> lock class, passed from the initialization site by macro.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mikko Perttunen <mperttunen@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/host1x/bus.c | 7 ++++---
>> include/linux/host1x.h | 9 ++++++++-
>> 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/host1x/bus.c b/drivers/gpu/host1x/bus.c
>> index 347fb962b6c9..8fc79e9cb652 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/host1x/bus.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/host1x/bus.c
>> @@ -715,13 +715,14 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(host1x_driver_unregister);
>> * device and call host1x_device_init(), which will in turn call each client's
>> * &host1x_client_ops.init implementation.
>> */
>> -int host1x_client_register(struct host1x_client *client)
>> +int __host1x_client_register(struct host1x_client *client,
>> + struct lock_class_key *key)
>
> I've seen the kbuild robot warn about this because the kerneldoc is now
> out of date.
>
>> {
>> struct host1x *host1x;
>> int err;
>>
>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&client->list);
>> - mutex_init(&client->lock);
>> + __mutex_init(&client->lock, "host1x client lock", key);
>
> Should we maybe attempt to make this unique? Could we use something like
> dev_name(client->dev) for this?
I'm curious who the lockdep warning could be triggered at all, I don't
recall ever seeing it. Mikko, could you please clarify how to reproduce
the warning?
