Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1491188

[PATCH] gpio: pca953x: add a comment explaining the need for a lockdep subclass

Show all headers | View raw

This is a follow-up to commit 559b46990e76 ("gpio: pca953x: fix an
incorrect lockdep warning"). The reason for calling
lockdep_set_subclass() in pca953x_probe() is not explained in
the code.

Add a comment describing the problem, partial solution and required
future extensions.

Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
---
 drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c
index 018f39c..f306909 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c
@@ -786,6 +786,22 @@ static int pca953x_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
 	chip->chip_type = PCA_CHIP_TYPE(chip->driver_data);
 
 	mutex_init(&chip->i2c_lock);
+	/*
+	 * In case we have an i2c-mux controlled by a GPIO provided by an
+	 * expander using the same driver higher on the device tree, read the
+	 * i2c adapter nesting depth and use the retrieved value as lockdep
+	 * subclass for chip->i2c_lock.
+	 *
+	 * REVISIT: This solution is not complete. It protects us from lockdep
+	 * false positives when the expander controlling the i2c-mux is on
+	 * a different level on the device tree, but not when it's on the same
+	 * level on a different branch (in which case the subclass number
+	 * would be the same).
+	 *
+	 * TODO: Once a correct solution is developed, a similar fix should be
+	 * applied to all other i2c-controlled GPIO expanders (and potentially
+	 * regmap-i2c).
+	 */
 	lockdep_set_subclass(&chip->i2c_lock,
 			     i2c_adapter_depth(client->adapter));
 
-- 
2.7.4

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

[PATCH] gpio: pca953x: add a comment explaining the need for a lockdep subclass Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> - 2016-09-26 12:00 +0200
  [PATCH] gpio: pca953x: add a comment explaining the need for a lockdep subclass Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> - 2016-09-26 12:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] gpio: pca953x: add a comment explaining the need for a  lockdep subclass Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de> - 2016-09-26 12:10 +0200
      Re: [PATCH] gpio: pca953x: add a comment explaining the need for a  lockdep subclass Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de> - 2016-09-29 08:10 +0200
        Re: [PATCH] gpio: pca953x: add a comment explaining the need for a  lockdep subclass Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> - 2016-09-29 10:00 +0200
          Re: [PATCH] gpio: pca953x: add a comment explaining the need for a  lockdep subclass Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de> - 2016-09-29 10:10 +0200
      Re: [PATCH] gpio: pca953x: add a comment explaining the need for a  lockdep subclass Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> - 2016-10-04 14:20 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] gpio: pca953x: add a comment explaining the need for a  lockdep subclass Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de> - 2016-10-12 09:10 +0200

csiph-web