Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1485932
| From | Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] gpio: fix an incorrect lockdep warning |
| Date | 2016-09-18 21:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <siQg9-3OY-9@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <si57z-7Km-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <si5AB-7UW-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <si5AB-7UW-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <siQg9-3OY-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <siQg9-3OY-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
2016-09-18 21:43 GMT+02:00 Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>: > 2016-09-18 10:52 GMT+02:00 Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>: >> 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
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH v2 0/4] gpio: fix an incorrect lockdep warning Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> - 2016-09-16 18:10 +0200
[PATCH v2 3/4] i2c: add a warning to i2c_adapter_depth() Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> - 2016-09-16 18:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] gpio: fix an incorrect lockdep warning Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de> - 2016-09-16 19:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] gpio: fix an incorrect lockdep warning Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de> - 2016-09-16 20:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] gpio: fix an incorrect lockdep warning Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> - 2016-09-18 21:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] gpio: fix an incorrect lockdep warning Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-09-19 10:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] gpio: fix an incorrect lockdep warning Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-09-19 11:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] gpio: fix an incorrect lockdep warning Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> - 2016-09-20 12:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] gpio: fix an incorrect lockdep warning Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-09-20 12:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] gpio: fix an incorrect lockdep warning Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> - 2016-09-20 13:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] gpio: fix an incorrect lockdep warning Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> - 2016-09-20 14:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] gpio: fix an incorrect lockdep warning Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-09-20 17:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] gpio: fix an incorrect lockdep warning Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> - 2016-09-18 21:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] gpio: fix an incorrect lockdep warning Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-09-17 03:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] gpio: fix an incorrect lockdep warning Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de> - 2016-09-17 12:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] gpio: fix an incorrect lockdep warning Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> - 2016-09-17 21:10 +0200
csiph-web