From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] gpio: fix an incorrect lockdep warning
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2016 21:45:01 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMpxmJX3_ec44Z0UVTNqSDjmNq+Oe3sk+szLE-Nj7X4pztbywQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1474041765-17818-1-git-send-email-bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
 <20160916172621.GA1426@katana> <deaa654a-9afc-eae6-6bc8-75f2c3960970@axentia.se>
 <20160916175842.GD1426@katana> <587cdb60-d7fe-3ab2-b635-02c5072e102e@axentia.se>
 <CAMpxmJUX8wszxhkoOyuqPeC8xgBjLXFRSWDSa0cOrJ92dUYX1g@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Return-path: <linux-gpio-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-io0-f175.google.com ([209.85.223.175]:34656 "EHLO
        mail-io0-f175.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1758277AbcIRTpC (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>); Sun, 18 Sep 2016 15:45:02 -0400
Received: by mail-io0-f175.google.com with SMTP id q92so74278350ioi.1
        for <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>; Sun, 18 Sep 2016 12:45:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAMpxmJUX8wszxhkoOyuqPeC8xgBjLXFRSWDSa0cOrJ92dUYX1g@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-gpio-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org
To: Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>
Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>, Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@gmail.com>, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>, Vignesh R <vigneshr@ti.com>, Yong Li <yong.b.li@intel.com>, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, linux-i2c <linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org>, linux-gpio <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>

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