Hi Peter, Le 07/03/2013 09:08, Peter Chen a écrit : > On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 11:33:02AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote: >> [ 2.149645] other info that might help us debug this: >> [ 2.149645] >> [ 2.157667] Possible unsafe locking scenario: >> [ 2.157667] >> [ 2.163598] CPU0 CPU1 >> [ 2.168134] ---- ---- >> [ 2.172667] lock(&(&cdev->lock)->rlock); >> [ 2.176790] lock(&(&ci->lock)->rlock); >> [ 2.183255] lock(&(&cdev->lock)->rlock); >> [ 2.189893] lock(&(&ci->lock)->rlock); > > The precondition of above is the chipidea interrupt can be re-entered. > But as far as I know, the same interrupt can't be re-entered at current > system. Yes, it seems to work quite fine anyway, but I'm not sure simply ignoring this would be the right answer. Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
