From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx.adeep.su (mx.adeep.su [185.250.0.168]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F31D73DFC61; Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:05:43 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.250.0.168 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1782389145; cv=none; b=QEhGzL/FrnA3krsehLS/9EGWMw1hoda5RnL2V4gV+SV/BgGhMponA10PUP29+py5mFv6EY3RDND4plHWLESlPkX5gAudlOlVbYs8jNaQz2w05eeQ7sCoyNT1e4EFxChEvPxNtn+m//oyXDBUok8Ga6C4mHqnDAn7ZXbsI1gJHpM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1782389145; c=relaxed/simple; bh=FxD5JjqjW1gaKhHe+/B9VFLUNkdIT1Gd3a5pW/Cr4Y4=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=QDb4VdAA1cegfyzSuHl1i3PJ3id0OCWZQSZkdT0zGzKpTK1RNweLdirC8JU4+3PaE8owSAqG9yxe0mc9zOieUYfG7iCF0vGKC5ynJ7Hwnn3Dh4KpmFPLFfC8IsQQNOxv8jcrhs1nE7G3PVFgJRAWPxN0/ah7OAMCNMtDzeUmzv0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=baodeep.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=baodeep.com; dkim=fail (2048-bit key) header.d=baodeep.com header.i=@baodeep.com header.b=iHUltsGX reason="signature verification failed"; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.250.0.168 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=baodeep.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=baodeep.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=baodeep.com header.i=@baodeep.com header.b="iHUltsGX" Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Mailerdaemon) with ESMTPSA id 8EF0D1A0C8A; Thu, 25 Jun 2026 15:05:41 +0300 (MSK) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=baodeep.com; s=dkim; t=1782389141; h=from:subject:date:message-id:to:cc:mime-version:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-language:in-reply-to:references; bh=9mXIj+mN0okDzD2iEIEK87JUucdAnGmmd68jsRDhCyI=; b=iHUltsGXX/Iok1BcHLC8NxNAXZxiLB+f7d3VPaStvR6pB8Z9s3jDvPszknOwZwAJFsv/SJ HFGmAa/Kypg57bgHOa4XwhwnZZie1Y9j7TsMAt0cP6PC+1G5EhxOZXsZQyqI0OFkbOGkUx neQ857sOVo4ggIOzoT4h668BIdiHwrcauN7lTfDDXkbC8eGDCwCXGoEbk6z0f/1YjPO5zK 6zvUs+KbcYqJgZ9X9Rs9T+ThfEwVkeWwZ61fZDSBTVsVzBWALbKYy0KUeRaqCaZW5nvQzm enUSEkzFyHe6r9+KCLS9ZHFgOYc6J0tepzgcTtxA9WkCJGejnRM4jfSZel/PVA== Message-ID: <49c2aeb0-39b9-4bbe-833e-b18e38167f8e@baodeep.com> Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2026 15:05:41 +0300 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] gpio: fix sleeping-in-atomic in shared-proxy; restore meson non-sleeping To: Bartosz Golaszewski Cc: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org References: <20260610153329.937833-1-v@baodeep.com> <184d315b-a0a1-4792-8a40-1b4967025916@samsung.com> <112d2563-e650-4881-bba0-335f6a3fcb8a@arm.com> Content-Language: ru From: Viacheslav In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Last-TLS-Session-Version: TLSv1.3 Hi! 24.06.2026 10:25, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 17:16:44 +0200, Robin Murphy said: >> On 11/06/2026 9:26 am, Marek Szyprowski wrote: >>> Hi Viachesla, >>> >>> On 10.06.2026 17:32, Viacheslav Bocharov wrote: >>>> gpio-shared-proxy chooses its descriptor lock (mutex vs spinlock) from >>>> the underlying chip's can_sleep, but under that lock it calls config and >>>> direction ops that reach sleeping pinctrl paths. On a controller with >>>> non-sleeping MMIO value ops the lock is a spinlock, so a sleeping call >>>> runs from atomic context: >>>> > > ... > >>> >>> I've checked this patchset with these two reverted and no warning was reported. >> >> If it hadn't already been fixed (...) >> > > About that - Viacheslav, do you still plan to submit v2 of this? Thanks for review. I prepared and sent the second version of the patch today > > Bart > > _______________________________________________ > linux-amlogic mailing list > linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-amlogic