From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755084AbbHFJnj (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Aug 2015 05:43:39 -0400 Received: from mezzanine.sirena.org.uk ([106.187.55.193]:58258 "EHLO mezzanine.sirena.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750773AbbHFJnh (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Aug 2015 05:43:37 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 10:43:29 +0100 From: Mark Brown To: Srinivas Kandagatla Cc: Liam Girdwood , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20150806094329.GQ20873@sirena.org.uk> References: <1438790528-4435-1-git-send-email-srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="g5Xz/5Ra22Vj4WpF" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1438790528-4435-1-git-send-email-srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> X-Cookie: Please take note: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 94.175.94.161 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: broonie@sirena.org.uk Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] regulator: Fix recursive mutex lockdep warning X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mezzanine.sirena.org.uk) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --g5Xz/5Ra22Vj4WpF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 05:02:08PM +0100, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote: > A recursive lockdep warning occurs if you call regulator_set_voltage() > on a load switches that are modelled as regulators with a parent supply as > there is no nesting annotation for the rdev->mutex. > To avoid this warning, use the unlocked version of the get_voltage(). No, just completely removing the locking is broken - the locking is there for a reason! This needs some lockdep dance, either something like what we have for regmaps with a class per regulator or something more fancy but whatever's going on just hacking out locking to shut up warnings from lockdep is clearly not a good idea. --g5Xz/5Ra22Vj4WpF Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVwyxBAAoJECTWi3JdVIfQKWIH/A9kLprhLRU4B3nOC6HszxuW IzZ7DMaT1Vvh/9fr3wN64w2eEcP5vL047nN88Jvwa7a0bS66KbeoC2x8pNzFnGP4 LiGJ8uyq3LIUMN3+0QS8uN7Psfxzvy1zt/JQofvtTnQTeV55+Efaod3bkG+zli3V bhQ3c1lNtPIBF7GXOyEWRGo+GgyaicTNDlKJK9gbcwIR6FXslsEvJbnHSaNzE2ue 8RBTiWhaipxfLbZrTrUCjzVUm7oQ4C1G2wG584HQyqBn2RsgyNUrkIbFGIGNLsqU QNbELfrciMHZfMsVKuYl7CKlzgtXVA9TILOOk2P71z4qu4az/BIvq6GzLzMCBnw= =g4rP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --g5Xz/5Ra22Vj4WpF--