On Wed, 9 Sep 2015, Grygorii Strashko wrote: > On 09/08/2015 11:03 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > So, yes a seperate locking class for that intc trainwreck is probably > > required. > > > > Just as an option, May be we can proceed with patch: > [PATCH v2 2/6] genirq: fix irqchip_set_wake_parent if IRQCHIP_SKIP_SET_WAKE > http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-omap/msg121262.html > > As result, irq_chip_set_wake_parent() can be used here and no lockdep issues.
The driver in question is not using hierarchical irq domains. So what would that patch solve? Thanks, tglx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/