On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 05:03:00PM +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote: > On 06/25/2015 03:21 PM, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >wouldn't it be better to use the mutex_lock_nested() and co to explicitly > >express your hierarchy? > That would require that the hierarchy is known in advance. The hierarchy > depends on the hardware topology. Different systems will have different > hierarchies where the relationship between locks can change and it will be > hard to find a hierarchy that works across all topologies. It depends on what you use as the key for the nested locking stuff. If you assign a key per regmap (casting the pointer to an integer, using an IDR or something). I don't know if that creates problems for the locking code, I'd not expect so but then I'd not have expected the problem in the first place. As far as I can tell we're likely to end up needing a key per regmap or something similar.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
