On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 12:49:22PM +0100, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
> On 06/08/15 12:40, Mark Brown wrote:
> >>lock_class per regulator makes more sense, I will try to cookup an RFC
> >>patch.
> >There's an issue there with all lock classes needing to be statically
> >allocated which makes
On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 12:49:22PM +0100, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
On 06/08/15 12:40, Mark Brown wrote:
lock_class per regulator makes more sense, I will try to cookup an RFC
patch.
There's an issue there with all lock classes needing to be statically
allocated which makes things a bit
On 06/08/15 12:40, Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 12:01:29PM +0100, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
On 06/08/15 10:43, Mark Brown wrote:
like what we have for regmaps with a class per regulator or something
lock_class per regulator makes more sense, I will try to cookup an RFC
On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 12:01:29PM +0100, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
> On 06/08/15 10:43, Mark Brown wrote:
> >like what we have for regmaps with a class per regulator or something
> lock_class per regulator makes more sense, I will try to cookup an RFC
> patch.
There's an issue there with all
On 06/08/15 10:43, Mark Brown wrote:
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
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,
2015-08-06 16:35 GMT+09:00 Krzysztof Kozlowski :
> On 06.08.2015 16:29, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
>> Thanks Krzysztof
>>
>> On 06/08/15 02:39, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
--- a/drivers/regulator/core.c
>+++ b/drivers/regulator/core.c
>@@ -2919,7 +2919,7 @@ static int
On 06.08.2015 16:29, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
> Thanks Krzysztof
>
> On 06/08/15 02:39, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> --- a/drivers/regulator/core.c
>>> >+++ b/drivers/regulator/core.c
>>> >@@ -2919,7 +2919,7 @@ static int _regulator_get_voltage(struct
>>> regulator_dev *rdev)
>>> > }
Thanks Krzysztof
On 06/08/15 02:39, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
--- a/drivers/regulator/core.c
>+++ b/drivers/regulator/core.c
>@@ -2919,7 +2919,7 @@ static int _regulator_get_voltage(struct regulator_dev
*rdev)
> } else if (rdev->desc->fixed_uV && (rdev->desc->n_voltages == 1)) {
>
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
On 06/08/15 12:40, Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 12:01:29PM +0100, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
On 06/08/15 10:43, Mark Brown wrote:
like what we have for regmaps with a class per regulator or something
lock_class per regulator makes more sense, I will try to cookup an RFC
On 06/08/15 10:43, Mark Brown wrote:
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
On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 12:01:29PM +0100, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
On 06/08/15 10:43, Mark Brown wrote:
like what we have for regmaps with a class per regulator or something
lock_class per regulator makes more sense, I will try to cookup an RFC
patch.
There's an issue there with all lock
Thanks Krzysztof
On 06/08/15 02:39, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
--- a/drivers/regulator/core.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/core.c
@@ -2919,7 +2919,7 @@ static int _regulator_get_voltage(struct regulator_dev
*rdev)
} else if (rdev-desc-fixed_uV (rdev-desc-n_voltages == 1)) {
2015-08-06 16:35 GMT+09:00 Krzysztof Kozlowski k.kozlow...@samsung.com:
On 06.08.2015 16:29, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
Thanks Krzysztof
On 06/08/15 02:39, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
--- a/drivers/regulator/core.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/core.c
@@ -2919,7 +2919,7 @@ static int
On 06.08.2015 16:29, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
Thanks Krzysztof
On 06/08/15 02:39, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
--- a/drivers/regulator/core.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/core.c
@@ -2919,7 +2919,7 @@ static int _regulator_get_voltage(struct
regulator_dev *rdev)
} else if
2015-08-06 1:02 GMT+09:00 Srinivas Kandagatla :
> 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
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().
wiithout this patch kernel
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().
wiithout this patch kernel
2015-08-06 1:02 GMT+09:00 Srinivas Kandagatla srinivas.kandaga...@linaro.org:
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
20 matches
Mail list logo
