On 2016-09-16 19:58, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>>> Looks good from my POV, but will wait for Peter to comment.
>>> If accepted, I'd think this should go via my I2C tree and I would like
>>> to ask Linus to ack patch 4. D'accord, everyone?
>> Since it is not clear if "Peter" is me or PeterZ (I suspect PeterZ...),
> Nope, I meant you :) I really value your input, it especially helps me
> on topics like locking, nesting, muxing... etc. Much appreciated, thanks
> a lot for doing that!
>> I'm just adding that it all looks fine by me as well, just to prevent
>> this from being held up by a misunderstanding.
> OK. I read this as Acked-by.
>> It does unconditionally add a new function to i2c-core that is only
>> ever used if lockdep is enabled, but it is tiny and I'm not bothered
>> by that memory waste.
> 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